9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (6) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Rules, 1944. It was originally filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government and has been transferred to this Tribunal in terms of Section 35-P of the Central Excises & Salt Act for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it. 2. The appellant is a company manufacturing liquid carbon dioxide at its factory at Udyogamandal and Quilon in Kerala State. The appellants claimed a refund of Rs. 49,565.72, representing 25% excise duty relief under notification No. 198/76 dated 16-6-1976 in respect of the clearances between 12-12-1977 to 31-3-1978. The refund claim of the appellant was rejected by the original authority, namely, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ernakulam under Rule 11 of the Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vantage of its own laches to the detriment of the appellant for denying him the refund lawfully due to him. 4. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative submitted that the appellants claiming duty relief in terms of notification No. 198/76 in respect of clearance between 20-12-1977 to 30-1-1978 should have filed an application for refund to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty and in the instant case the various letters referred to and relied upon by the appellant would neither constitute an application for refund within the meaning of Rule 11 nor a protest thereunder. The Senior Departmental Representative further contended that the Rules relating to limitation wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant has clearly brought to the notice of the Assistant Collector his claim for refund by an application. If this application is construed in law as an application for refund in terms of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, it is conceded by the learned Senior Departmental Representative that the rejection of the appellants' refund claim under the impugned order is not legally sustainable. On a consideration of the letter of the appellant dated 20-6-1978, we are convinced that in substance it is an application seeking refund and inasmuch as a copy of the same has been sent to the Assistant Collector, the appellant should be deemed to have made an application for refund as per law in terms of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 194 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
