9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the exemption in Notification No. 198/76 dated 16-6-1976, hereinafter referred to as the notification. The years for which the petitioner wanted to avail of the exemption are 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. There has been correspondence spread over the years 1977 to 1979. The last letter of the petitioner on the subject is dated 10-10-1979. The second respondent declined to accord the exemption o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -rule (iv) of the above said Rule is relevant in this regard. The provisions of Rule 11 being general in nature could apply for deciding the admi-ssibility or otherwise of the refund claims filed by the assessee in the context of the Notification No. 198/77 and therefore the time limit of six months in your case where duty was not paid under protest has to be reckoned with .reference to the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or declaration on the part of the petitioner with regard to the base period and the base clearances need not necessarily be accepted and approved by the second respondent while considering the question of exemption under the notification and only after the base period and the base clearances are fixed by the second respondent, the petitioner's claim for exemption could be considered; and viewe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd. Refund presupposes quantification and that is feasible only after the base period and the base clearances are determined and approved by the second respondent. That alone could be the proper construction to be put on and the proper way to work the notification and in this view, I am not able to sustain the reasonings expressed in the impugned order of the second respondent that the limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
