9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1982 (1) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d considered the points raised by the petitioners in the revision application. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners cleared yarn falling under item 18E of the Central Excise Tariff after payment of duty during the period 30-3-72 to 25-4-1972 to M/s. Shri Shakti Mills Ltd., Bombay. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim on 8-5-1973 in respect of the duty paid on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the cause of refund of duty paid on the yarn in question at the time of the clearance would arise only when the yarn is used for weaving of fabrics by a composite mill and not on the date of payment of duty assessed at the standard rate at the time of clearance and, therefore, the refund claim would not be covered by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 but would be governed by the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed unless the claimant makes an application for such refund under his signature and lodges it with the proper officer within three months from the date of such payment or adjustment as the case may be" and that the period of three months mentioned in Rule 11 has been enhanced to a period of one year by Rule 173J ibid. 5. In view of the above position the Government observe that a claim for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... miting of the benefit of the exemption to a composite mill is well nigh reasoning rendered nugatory and could as well have been deleted. In that view of the matter 'too' the Government consider that it could not be said that the petitioners paid the duty under any mistake of law. 7. The Government, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
