TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia for the purpose of charging duty on tea produced in the country in the various Zones. By the said Notification, district Lakhimpur was inter alia, included in Zone V and the tea grown and produced therein was levied to duty at the rate of Rs. 1.30 per kg. 1.3 At the time of issuing the said Notification dated 5-11-1981 district Lakhimpur did not embrace within itself the erstwhile sub-division, Dibrugarh since 1971 which had been made a separate district. 1.4 By a subsequent Notification in January, 1982, district of Dibrugarh was also included in Zone V and, therefore, tea grown in the district of Dibrugarh also became chargeable to duty at the rate of Rs. 1.30 with effect from 29-1-1982 with the issue of the said amending Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 81 to 28-1-1982 would be leviable to duty at the rate of 40 paises per kg going by decision of the Gauhati High Court and proviso (i) to Notification No. 184/81 dated 5-11-1981. The Assistant Collector allowed the refund claim of Rs. 26,329.28 against the claim of Rs. 91,161.18. 3. On appeal before the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) the appellants herein did not succeed. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Learned Advocate, Shri N. Mookherjee for the appellants, has urged that the matter originated with the refund claim of Rs. 91,161.18 on 26-4-1982 by the appellants herein. The refund claim was rejected and the department did not succeed right up to the stage of Tribunal s judgment as already narrated above. The Tribunal rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, ld. Advocate submits that Gauhati High Court in its final direction has held that tea removed by the petitioners in the district of Dibrugarh from 5-11-1981 to 28-1-1982 will be leviable to duty at the rate of Rs.40 ps. He, therefore, submits that the lower appellate authority granting the refund claim only on tea plucked/grown during the relevant period in the district of Dibrugarh is not correct and goes against the express direction of Gauhati High Court in para 17 of its judgment. 7. Apart from the aforesaid, ld. Advocate has also submitted that the Assistant Collector while granting refund only on tea grown in the district Dibrugarh, has not averred that the remaining quantity on which he has not granted the refund was not grown w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss and/or levy duty on tea grown by the petitioners in the district of Didrugarh from 5-11-1981 to 28-1-1982 at the rate of Rs. 0.40 paises per kg. If any amount above the said rate has been assessed and realised, the same should be refunded to the petitioner. 11. He also submits that the lower authorities have not re-interpreted the Notification 184/81, dated 5-11-1981 but on the other hand, have given full effect to the judgment of Gauhati High Court as well as of the Tribunal and that is why, the refund claim of Rs. 26,329.28 has been granted to the appellants. It is only on tea not grown in the district of Dibrugarh on which the refund claim has been denied by the department. This is clearly in terms of direction in para 16 of the Ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
