9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (9) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of its revisional powers under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'), rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for refund of different amounts which have been charged as excise duty and which according to the petitioner were not liable to be charged, between the months of March, 1967 to July, 1967 over its despatches of steel ingots. Five writ applications have been filed because the refund claimed in all the writ applications relates to different months, that is from March to July, 1967. By consent of the parties, C.W.J. No 4 of 1971, which relates to the month of May, 1967 has been heard as the main case. 2. **** 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 35 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Government hereby exempts steel ingots falling under Item No. 26 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), produced from fresh unused steel melting scrap, exclusively or in admixture with any other material, from so such of the duty of excise as is proved to have been on such fresh unused steel melting scrap under Item No. 26 of the said Schedule, provided that no set off of duty has already been availed of in respect of such scrap." 5. In the letter addressed by the petitioner to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Annexure ₹ 6') it was stated as follows :- "...the cut ends...of which were sent back by the Indian Tube Co. to our works showing the receipt of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re ₹ 7'). 6. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid order was passed by the Central Government taking an erroneous view of the aforesaid notification and without proper consideration of the materials which were in possession of the petitioner to support its claim for refund. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that in the aforesaid order the Joint Secretary was not justified in observing : "In the absence of specific documentary evidence to prove that the scraps in question were duty paid, the petitioner's claim cannot be accepted" According to the petitioner, it was mentioned at the time of the hearing of the revision petition applications on the 26th March, 1970, that it was prepared to produce all relevent documents and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven an opportunity to produce all the relevent documents and materials before the Central Government in support of its claim l for refund under the aforesaid notification, dated the 1st March, 1964. It will however, be open to the Central Government either to direct the petitioner to produce the relevent documents and materials before it, or to direct any of its officers at Jamshedpur to verify from the records of the petitioner and other relevant documents the assertion of the petitioner and to find out as to how for the claim for exemption is borne out from those materials. 11. In the result, C.W.J.C. No. 4 of 1971 is allowed and the order of the Central Government, dated the 7th September, 1970 (Annexure "7") is quashed. It will, howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
