TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent to refund the duty amounting to Rs. 1,54,865.56 paise levied and collected from the petitioner during October, 1984. The petitioner is manufacturing cold rolled strips using duty paid hot rolled strips and claimed reduction in the rate of duty on such cold rolled strips under Notification No. C.E. 209/83. Initially the concession of reduction of duty at Rs. 130/- per metric ton were granted, but subsequently it was withdrawn on the ground that annealing is only a finishing process where electric furnace is used and cold rolled strips are produced before the use of electric furnace. The petitioner appeal against the withdrawal of the concession before the Collector of Appeals, New Delhi, who also denied the concession granted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince records of October, 1984 were burnt in riots, therefore, it was not possible for filing those documents before the said authority. However, the secondary evidence specially gate pass pertaining to October, 1984 were all filed without the gate passes alongwith Bank Account showing the payments for the relevant month in question were all filed, but the said authority, without applying its mind on the same, rejected the claim of the petitioner. This approach of the said authority is illegal specially in view of the fact that the said documents were burnt in the riots and the petitioner could under no circumstances have produced those documents. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find that as per Range Officer's report no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng looted or burnt the principle again is settled to permit a person to file the secondary or other such evidence to substantiate the claim before the authority by means of circumstantial or secondary evidence which is with him and the authority thereafter could after considering the said documents and after taking into consideration the documents of the department draw its own inference in accordance with law. If the petitioner could be said to have proved on the basis of the such documents the authority has to draw inference accordingly. However, the refusal of claim only on account of petitioner's not being able to file the P.L.A. and R.G. 23 Pt. II and T.R. 6 is not sustainable. At this juncture the learned counsel for Union of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned in the show cause notice for the scrutiny of the refund claim "It appears that the petitioner has already collected the duty paid both from the customers and no proof of refund back of duty was adduced". The argument is that since the show cause notice specifically mentions and the impugned order rejects the claim of the petitioner confining to non-production of certain documents as aforesaid, it should be treated that the petitioner has proved his case pertaining to this aspect and hence that cannot be raised on behalf of the respondents. Since we are sending back the matter to the Assistant Collector -respondent No, 2 for fresh decision in the matter, we are not expressing anything in respect of the latter argument. In the present c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
