TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals filed by as many appellants, who had approached him seeking his intervention in respect of adverse decisions passed against them by the concerned Assistant Collectors. What is common in all these cases is that these Assistant Collectors had rejected all the refund claims and the aggrieved parties, who are now respondents before us, had filed appeals to the Collector (Appeals) who then passed the impugned order whereby they were directed to file refund claims as per the amended provisions of Section 11B before the Assistant Collectors concerned. As the Collector (Appeals) had disposed of different appeals by his said common order, the Appellant Collector has filed the present separate appeals for each such appeal disposed of by the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Asstt. Collector s refusal to grant them the refunds of the duty stated to have been paid in excess. The appellants, however, claimed the refunds without indicating as to whether the burden of the duty, in respect of which the refunds have been claimed, was passed over to the buyers or not. The Asstt. Collectors also did not appear to have verified this aspect nor recorded any findings on this point. Under the amended provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 the appellants, even in respect of past claims, vide the new proviso to sub-section (1) of the said Section 11B, are required to produce documents to establish that the incidence of the duty sought to be refunded has not been passed on to the buyers, whereup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the matter only from the standpoint of the amended provisions of Section 11B. He very correctly pointed out that the examination of the claims in the light of the said amended provisions would arise only if the refund claims are decided in favour of the present respondents in which case, before the amounts are actually refunded, the procedure in terms of amended Section 11B would be required to be followed. Though the Collector (Appeals) had not considered, the appeals on merits, he has, however, created the wrong impression by implication that the claims are admissible on merits, and would only have to be regulated in terms of the said provisions. This is not what has actually been decided by him but it may be that in pursuance of his o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about much later should not be applied against them. He stated that they had made a detailed submission in their appeal filed with the Collector (Appeals) and had also requested for personal hearing to explain their case before him. They were not heard at all and an ex parte order has been passed. They would like to make fresh submissions in the matter and also would require the opportunity of personal hearing if the matter is remanded to the authorities below for de novo decision. 7. We have considered the submissions. We have perused the records. We are quite happy with the fair and realistic approach shown by the learned Senior Departmental Representative in presenting his argument. We entirely agree with his analysis. The drill presc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assistant Collector to deal with the refund matter with reference to the amended Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act as if that was the only question to be decided whereas the actual position was that as far as this respondent is concerned, the Assistant Collector had rejected the claim as time-barred which decision had been appealed against which, however, had not been decided by him. The Cross-Objection against this order does not make out any point of grievance and is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. On the contrary, the appeal is justified as the Order-in-Appeal has conveyed a wrong impression as if the Collector (Appeals) had allowed the appeals before him on merits or on time bar question and had left only the questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We order accordingly. The matter is remanded to Collector (A) for decision on merits. 10. As regards the third appeal, where the respondent is M/s. Lakshmi Narayan Motor Engineering Works, there is no response from them, not to speak of Cross-Objection. However, in line with our decision in the other two cases, we allow the appeal by way of remand to the Collector (Appeals) for de now decision on merits in accordance with law, after providing them the opportunity of personal hearing. 11. This order is passed in respect of the above-mentioned three appeals and related cross-objections. The impugned order is set aside with reference to the concerned respondents only. The order qua the other parties will come up for examination when the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|