TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants manufactured, during the period October 1974 to June 1975, Steel castings in which fresh unused duty paid steel melting scrap was used together with old steel melting scrap. They cleared the castings on payment of full duty and later applied for refund of a part of the central excise duty paid by them on the ground that under Notification No. 17/71-C.E. exemption was available to the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem on the castings on a proportionate basis with reference to duty paid and non-duty paid scrap used by them. Shri Bagaria, the learned advocate relied upon the following judgments: (i) 1977(1) E.L.T. J 61 (UOI v. TISCO), (ii) 1986(26) E.L.T. 259 (Aravali Ispat Ltd. v. CCE) CEGAT (iii) 1988 (35) E.L.T. 535 (Indian Organic Chemicals v. CCE) CEGAT (iv) 1978 (2) E.L.T. J452 (Aluminium Corpn. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r refund claims, for whatever reason, they cannot now ask that limitation be relaxed in respect of the amount by which they themselves reduced the claim. He further submitted that the factual position regarding the proportion of the duty paid and non-duty paid scrap has to be verified by the Asstt. Collector before any refund can be granted. 5. We have considered the submissions of both sides. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear this in mind. 7. We have also considered the submission of Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned advocate regarding application of limitation under Section 11B to the claim. His submission that as the refund claims were submitted prior to 6-8-1977 they should be governed by the limitation which prevailed at that time is correct. The limitation in respect of these claims should, therefore, be in accorda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
