TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we note that apart from the fact that no documentary evidence has been placed to establish that the incidence of duty paid by the appellant was not passed on to their buyers – refund claim rejected. - E/1054/2008 - A/2488/2008-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 25-11-2008 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Shri H.D. Dave, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri D.S. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)].- We have heard Shri H.D. Dave, ld. Advocate in support of the appellant and Shri D.S. Negi, ld. SDR in support of the impugned orders. 2. As per facts on record the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of agro chemicals falling under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a mistaken belief of law and the same should be accordingly refunded to them. The said stand was again reiterated before Commissioner (Appeals) that such collection of duty under mistake of law was governed by the general principle of limitation and not by the provisions to Section 11B. Commissioner (Appeals), while rejecting the above plea, has held that refund of duty, which has been collected by mis-interpreting or mis-applying the provisions of the Central Excise Act or any of the rules, regulations or Notification issued under the said enactment, such a claim has necessarily to be preferred under and in accordance with the provisions of the said enactment and within the period of limitation prescribed therein. He also made reference t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be applicable in respect of refund claims does not require the backing of any authoritative pronouncement inasmuch as the same is a settled law. It has been held so in umpteen number of cases and reference can be made to Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions given in the case of Miles India Ltd. reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) that the authorities acting under the statute are bound by the provisions of the Act. Tribunal also, being the creature of the statute is bound by the provisions of the act and cannot go beyond the same. Admittedly refund claim of duty of Rs.1,01,30,735/- was lodged beyond the normal period of limitation, without any protest. Ld. Advocate during the course of hearing has fairly conceded that debit entries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
