9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stake of law during the period from April, 1979 to March, 1983. The refund claim was received in the office of the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector on 3-8-1984. On the ground that the refund claim had been filed beyond the period of six months, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay rejected the refund claim of Rs. 2,20,206.38 under his order dated 11-1-1985. The order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. 2. The matter was heard on 9-1-1997 when Shri Rajesh Kumar Advocate appeared for the appellant. Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR is present for the respondent revenue. 3. Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate stated that the appellants were paying the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent proceedings. It was his submission that the matter has been correctly decided by the Collector Central Excise. 5. We have carefully considered the matter. Under letter dated 24-7-1984, the appellants have filed a refund claim addressed to the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Bombay. The letter dated 24-7-1984 is extracted below : RASHTRIYA METAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED Ref. : MP/ 24th July 1984 The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise Division K-J, Bombay, Old Custom House, Fort, Bombay - 400023. Dear Sir, Re : Refund of Excise Duty paid under T.I. 68, under mistake of law. We invite your attention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; For RASHTRIYA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. Sd/- (J.D. DAMANI) Materials Manager. Encl. : Application for refund & monthly details. 6. The ground taken by the appellant for claiming refund, as will be seen from the above extract was that they had been unnecessarily labouring under mistake of law. In this letter, there is no reference to any excisable goods or the reasons for claiming that no duty was payable. There is only reference to Item 68 which was omnibus item covering all other goods not elsewhere specified in the Old Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had been made on grounds of mistake of law, the limitation under general law of limitation will only apply. We find that in a number of decisions, the Supreme Court had taken a view that the statutory authorities functioning under the Central Excise Act are governed and bound by the limitation as provided under the Central Excise Act or the Customs Act. The Collector Central Excise (Appeals) has referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Miles India Limited. 9. Ld. Advocate had referred to the letter of protest dated 13-1-1981 which is extracted below : Rashtriya Metal Industries Ltd. Sir Mathuradas Vasanji Road, J.B. Nagar, Bombay - 400 059 K.XI/68/RMI/IC/80/8 - 4818 &e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
