9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate, for the Appellants. Mr. Hem Prakash, D.R., for the Respondent. ORDER Notification No. 198/76-C.E. gave partial concession from Central excise duty to certain specified goods. This concession was in the nature of an incentive for higher production. Tea was one of the commodities eligible for this concession. The instructions issued by the Department required that the assessees desirous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts filed their specific refund claim for the incentive rebate. The Assistant Collector sanctioned the claim. The Collector, however, initiated review proceedings, set aside the Asstt. Collector's order and rejected the appellants' claim as time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that the claim filed on 12-2-1980 was beyond the prescribed time-limit of six months. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment's instructions requiring prior approval of the base period and base clearances by the Asstt. Collector were not statutory ones and could not , therefore, override the statutory provisions of Rule 11 and that it was open to the appellants to start paying duty under protest as soon as they felt that their excess clearances had started. But the appellants did not do so. Their refund claim wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to avail of the concession on their own nor quantify their refund claim. They could not even know as to when exactly their excess clearances would start. The Assistant Collector took time in giving his approval and soon thereafter they quantified the amount of the concession admissible to them and filed a specific refund claim. In such a setting, it has to be held that when the appellants applied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
