9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the period from 14-3-1975 to 9-8-1977. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ghaziabad granted refund for a period of six months prior to 17-12-1977 under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (i.e. from 17-6-1977 to 17-12-1977) and rejected the claim for the earlier period. The applicants herein contended before the Assistant Collector that the duty was paid under protest. The Assistant Collector observed that the word "protest" appeared in respect of assessment of the goods in question for the first time in their letter dated 22-7-1977. He, therefore, rejected the contention of the applicants herein that duty was paid by them under protest from the very beginning. The matter ultimately came before this Tribunal for a decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty; and hence the time-limit prescribed under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not applicable. In support of their contention the applicants have cited several decisions of this Tribunal and also of the High Court. It is contended that the time-limit of three years under Limitation Act from the date of discovery the mistake is applicable in this case. 3. I have heard Shri S.S. Mehra, Consultant for the applicants and Smt. Dolly Saxena, SDR, for the respondent. Shri Mehra has reiterated the points raised in the reference application. He has also stated that the Notification No. 115/81-C.E., dated 11-5-1981, which prescribed the procedure for protest was not in existence during the period in question. The applicants protested ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Customs Act, 1962, learned counsel for the appellant sought leave to withdraw the appeal. We accord their leave to withdraw the appeal but make it clear that the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal suffers from no infirmity. If really the payment of the duty was under a mistake of law, the appellant may seek recourse to such alternative remedy as it may be advised." Again, in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills in Civil Appeal No. 283 of 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: - "It appears that where the duty has been levied without any authority of law or without reference to any statutory authority or the specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e advised. See the observations of this Court in Miles India Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector of Customs [1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) = 1985 ECR 289]."
In this judgment the Apex Court of the country has held that in making claims for the refund before the Departmental authority, as assessee is bound within the four corners of the statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder must be adhered to. In view of this pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the law is clearly settled and there is no justification for making a reference to High Court in the present case. As a result, the reference application filed by M/s. Worthington Pump India Ltd. is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
