1995 (6) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division, Ratlam/respondent No. 1 whereby the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise Division, has rejected the claims of the petitioner of the refund of the excess duty paid by the petitioner over and above the exemption notification issued in favour of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are thus : The petitioner M/s. Supreme Con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... up to the value of Rs. 17.5 lakhs were to be charged duty at 75% of such duty, by Notification No. 83/83, dated 1-3-1983 as amended by Notification No. 133/83, dated 24-4-1983. It is alleged that since the petitioner was not aware of the above notification, petitioner paid duty on its products at the full rate, i.e., basic of 10% and also special duty 5% of basic duty for the entire year. Therefo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the petitioner has a statutory remedy. 4. It is true that we would have certainly upheld this objection and dismissed the petition but that petition remained pending here since 1987 before this Court; therefore, the dismissal of this petition on this ground will not be proper exercise of jurisdiction. Apart from this, we are satisfied that there is no merit in this petition. The petitioner has b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X