9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances stated therein, the Tribunal will be pleased to set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise directing recovery of the refund granted under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 2. This appeal coming up for orders upon hearing the arguments of Shri P.N. Menon, representative of the appellants and upon hearing the arguments of Shri S.K. Choudhury, Seni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt only on 28-11-1980 and that it was barred by limitation under the then existing Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He, therefore, set aside the decision of the Assistant Collector and ordered recovery of the sum already granted as refund. 4. The representative of the appellants contends that in his order No. 3/79, dated 16-10-1980 itself, the Assistant Collector had given a findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fferential duty for the month of March 1978 but confined it in respect of the period prior to it. The note order of the Assistant Collector sanctioning the refund referred to in the present proceedings is dated 17-10-1981 in the relevant file of the department; the cheque itself is dated 19-10-1981. In terms of Section 11A(3)(ii)(c) read with Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey are not barred by limitation. 7. The representative of the appellants refers us to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India and others (Civil Appeal No. 677 of 1968 reported in ECR compilation of Central Excise cases, Supreme Court Judgment 1932-1982, p. 466). In para 17 of the judgment, His Lordship Justice Krishna Iyer h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
