9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 a Notification No. 198/78-exempting sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing on 1.5.1978 and ending on 30.9.1878, which was in excess of the average production of sugar during the corresponding period of the preceding three sugar years from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as was specified in the notification. We are concerned-in the present proceedings with free sale sugar. The quantum of exemption for such sugar was specified in the notification as Rs. 54/- per quintal. The appellant manufactured in the sugar year 1977-78 sugar In excess of the average products in the proceed rig three years. On 31.7.1988, the appellant filed a rebate claim with the Superintendent of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In due course, after holding adjudication proceedings the Superintendent passed an Order on 20.11.1980 restriction on the total rebate claim to Rs, 9,65,359.46 and directing the recovery of the excess rebated amount of Rs.3,92,577.77p. This order was made under Central Excise Rule 9-B. Aggrieved with this order the appellant pursued the matter in appeal. By the impugned order dated 28-1-1985 the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. It is against this order that the appellant is presently before us, 2. Shri K. P. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the claim for rebate was made on 31.7.1978 on the basis of an estimate of the likely excess production based on the experience of previous years. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be modified in the light of any subsequent changes in the rate of. basic excise duty leviable on sugar. Therefore, the extent of exemption was not relatable to the rate of duty prevalent on the date of clearance of the sugar. 4: In support of Ms contentions Shri Joshi relied upon the following decisions :- (a) Madras High Court judgment in SakthI Sugars Limited, Colmbatore v. Union of India and Others -1983ELT 484, (b) The Tribunal's decision in Shree Una Taluka Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -1984 (15) ELT -183. (c) The Tribunal's decision in Orient Paper Mills, Brajrajnagar v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta - 1983 ELT 1813; 5. Replying for the respondent, Smt. (c)oily Saxen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 10 for demanding back any amounts of duty erroneously refunded. Therefore, the normal period of six months alone would be applicable, in 1984 (15) ELT 183, the Tribunal had held that rebate claim with reference to a notification conferring duty concession allowed by adjustment in the personal ledger account virtually amounted to refund of duty paid. It further held that Central Excise Rule 10 covered demand for duty refunded by way of rebate claim passed erroneously as a result of misconstruction or mistake in interpreting the relevant notification. Following the ratio of the said decision, the demand notice in the present case must be deemed to be hit by limitation under Rule 10. 7. In view of the above finding, it is not nece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
