TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2010 - J.P. Devadhar and A.B. Chaudhari, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri C.A. Lokhade, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Mishra, ASG, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : J.P. Devadhar, J. (Oral)]. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2.This appeal was admitted on 7-8-2010 on the following questions of law : (A) Whether the period of limitation stipulated in Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act for making a claim for refund of excess duty paid is applicable where the prices are provisional and the self assessment is made by the assessee based upon the provisional rate(s)? If No, then since when should the period of limitation for raising a claim for refund of excess excise duty paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise, Bhopal : 2003 (58) RLT 747 = 2003 (157) E.LT. 97 (T)? (F) Whether or not the Order-in-Appeal No. C-II/2137/WZB/2003 dated 26-8-2003 (Annexure -X) passed by the respondent 1 vitiated on account of non-compliance of the mandate/ tenets of the principles of natural justice ? 3. During the period from 1-7-1999 to 31-10-2000, the appellant-assessee had cleared the cylinders manufactured by it on payment of excise duty under the self removal procedure. It appears that pursuant to the contract between the appellant and its customers, namely, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., there was downward revision of prices of cylinders, which were already cleared by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Central Office Mewar Palace Organization v. Union of India [2008 (12) S.T.R. 545 (Raj.)], learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that since the goods in question were cleared under self removal scheme, there was no question of filing an appeal and, therefore, the appellant was justified in seeking refund under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 7. We do not find any merit in the above contentions. Admittedly, while clearing the goods on payment of excise duty, the procedure for removal of goods on provisional basis has not been followed. The Apex Court in the case of Metal Forgings v. Union of India [2002 (146) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.)] has held that in the absence of order of provisional assessment, the clearance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
