TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he turnover in any financial year does not exceed Rs. 2.50 lacs. Exemption notification (P-1) to the aforesaid effect was issued on 1-3-1983. By yet another Notification No. 65/83 (P-2), the said notification (P-1) was amended. It was provided that in case if the turnover exceeds from Rs. 2.50 lacs but up to Rs. 30 lacs, in that event the small scale industry manufacturer would be entitled to avail of payment of concessional rate of excise duty at the rate of 50%. Petitioner realized during financial year 1986-87 that his annual turnover may exceed the limit of Rs. 2.50 lacs, he applied for grant of license, which was issued on 1-4-1986. Petitioner started making payment of excise duty at the concessional rate of 50% of the rate of excise d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the alternative remedy of filing the appeals as per order (P-11) dated 22-8-1989 passed by this Court. Appeals were required to be filed within thirty days. Petitioner accordingly filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority within thirty days but one common appeal was filed as against the three orders instead of three appeals. The Appellate Authority entertained the appeal with respect to the first order and gave the liberty to the petitioner to file two separate appeals with respect to two others orders. Appeal covering the period 1-4-1986 to 24-4-1986 was entertained in relation to refund. Petitioner thereafter, assailed the appellate order before CEGAT by way of filing appeal, in which order (P-18) was passed dismissing the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the orders passed in appeals, are bad in law. On hyper technical ground the appeal relating to the period 27-4-1986 to 15-7-1986 and 16-7-1986 to 31-7-1987, have been dismissed, thus the Appellate Authority be directed to condone the delay in the circumstances of the case, as expeditiously steps were taken, the delay ought to have been condoned particularly in view of the fact that this Court had admitted the writ petition and thereafter directed the appeals to be preferred. 5. Shri Jayant Neekhra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that exemption notification was issued on 24-4-1986, though there was reference in the notification that during financial year turnover should not exceed more than Rs. 15 lacs, ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered within the financial year, however, exemption is to be prospective as rightly held by the CEGAT, the Appellate Authority w.e.f. the date on which goods were exempted from payment of excise duty. There is no indication that retrospective effect was sought to be given to exemption from the excise duty, thus it has been rightly held that goods were exempted with the prospective effect on 24-4-86, thus refund which was prayed for, has been rightly denied to the petitioner. Petitioner was not entitled for refund of the excise duty paid before 24-4-1966. 7. Coming to the question of dismissal of two appeals No. 72/92 and 73/92. It is not in dispute that as against the three orders (P-8), (P-9) and (P-10) a writ petition was preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
