9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (5) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the submissions made by the petitioners in the revision application and the arguments urged at the time of personal bearing alongwith the resume of the written arguments submitted by the counsel. 2. The facts of the case are that the party submitted a refund claim on 29-12-76 for ₹ 1,60,036.81 on the ground that the refund claim arose out of payment of duty on goods now known as spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal stage, the petitioners had contended that they had lodged a protest vide the letter dated 20-12-71. The Appellate Collector observed that this protest was not available in the case records sent by the Assistant Collector. At the time of hearing before the Appellate Collector, the party could not produce evidence to substantiate that the said letter dated 20-12-1971 was actually received by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were classified under Tariff Item 68 and the petitioners were issued a licence under Tariff Item 68 on 4-11-75 and thereafter the petitioners paid duty under Tariff Item 68 on these speciality oils. This lends confirmation to the petitioner's contention that prior to the introduction of Tariff Item 68, i.e. prior to 1-8-75 the goods in question did not fall within the purview of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation under Rule 11 will be applicable since the goods were classifiable under Central Excise Tariff. The refund claim was filed on 28-12-76 and therefore the claim for the period 1-3-75 to 3-11-75 is clearly time-barred. As regards the claim for the period 20-7-71 to 28-2-75, it is clear that the speciality oils were not classifiable under any item of the Central Excise Tariff and hence the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
