TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant, they had issued four invoices covering certain quantity of their product after payment of Central Excise duty which were subsequently cancelled by them due to some reasons and four new invoices were raised covering the same consignment. As per the appellants they had paid duty under the two sets of invoices in respect of the same consignment of the goods. Apart from the above refund, refund of Rs. 240.73 and Rs. 1776.88 was also claimed on account of some P-41 packing charges but the same was subsequently withdrawn by the appellants and their refund claim was revised to Rs. 1,85,515.45. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise after considering the appellant s refund agreed with the appellant that the duty was paid by them two time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. I find that there is no dispute as regards the double payment of duty in respect of the same goods. Further, the fact of the assessments being provisional at the relevant time is also not doubted by the authorities below. Smt. Gyara appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that it is not a well settled law that assessments provisional for one purpose is provisional for all the purposes and hence the same has to be considered as provisional for the purpose of refund claim in question. I fully agree with the above proposition of law. The refund claim was filed by the appellant on 19-11-1992 for duty paid from 1-5-1992 to 4-5-1992. The provisional assessments for the month of May, 1992 were finalised in the month of April, 1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be known to the other side as to whether the duty finally assessed is more or less than the duty provisionally assessed resulting in demand or refund of duty. In other words unless final assessment is made, assessees would not be knowing whether any refund had accrued to them or not. In such circumstances, to hold that the assessee should have filed a refund claim within six months from the date of payment of duty, even when the assessee may not be aware of his right to refund, would be erroneous. Looking at the problem from the other angle if the assessees are required bo file the refund claim within six months from the date of payment of duty even during provisional assessment then it would be generally incumbent upon department to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
