9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondents. [Older per: K.L. Rekhi, Member(T)].- The appellants were sanctioned refund of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,88,080/- by the Assistant Collector. The refund was paid to them on 26-6-1973 through a credit entry in their Personal Ledger Account. The refund was on account of the partial exemption from duty on sugar in terms of Notification No. 203/72-C.E., dated 28-9-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit entry in their PLA. Accordingly, he held that Rule 10A, which at that time contained no time limit, had been correctly invoked. The Appellate Collector agreed with the Assistant Collector holding that this was not case of erroneous refund. 2. Before us, the appellants have taken the issue of time bar as their first plea. They relied on the authority of this tribunal's order in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Rule 10A could be attracted in the facts of this case. As this was clearly a case of erroneous refund which attracted the time bar of Rule 10, we hold that the show cause notice issued to the appellants was time barred. In view of this finding we do not consider it necessary to go into the merits of the case. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
