9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid by them on Electric Storage Batteries and parts thereof manufactured by them with the brand name "Amco" and cleared during the period 1-9-1980 to 31-3-1984. The Assessment was provisional and the assessment was finalised by the authorities and communicated by finalisation order dated 18-3-1987. The appellant preferred a refund claim dated 23-3-1987 which was rejected by the original authority on grounds of bar of limitation and on appeal while confirming the rejection of Appellant's refund claim the lower appellant authority, found the issue of limitation in favour of the Appellant but rejected the refund on the ground that the appellant had not filed the necessary declaration envisaged under Notification No. 80/80 Central Excise and 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice of the same and giving the appellant an opportunity in regard to it, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the issue we set aside the impugned order and remand the same to the original authority for consideration of applicability of the benefit of notification to the appellant after hearing the appellant and in accordance with law. We make it clear that it is open to the appellant to produce evidence in support of the total clearance for the period in question in terms of the exemption notification, cited supra and to put forth his other pleas in accordance with law. In the result the appeal is remanded. 5. [Assent per : V.P. Gulati, Member (T)]. - The learned lower authority while ruling on the question of time bar in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a case where the appellant had paid duty for the goods cleared by them. The appellant's unit was, therefore, functioning under the Central Excise Control and they were filing their returns prescribed by the statute and these returns were finalised on 13-1-1987. It would appear that all the manufacturing and other activities regarding clearance of goods were all along within the purview of the Central Excise Authorities and the appellant should have been called upon to produce contemporaneous evidence as to whether they satisfied the conditions set out in the notification. The non-filing of the declaration itself cannot be a fatal infirmity as the declaration merely required an assertion from the appellant that the clearance would not ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
