TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders rebate for tea exports, emphasizes legitimate claims over technicalities.</h1> <h3>A TOSH & SONS PVT. LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> A TOSH & SONS PVT. LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 220 (Cal.) Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to Rebate2. Limitation Period for Rebate Claim3. Procedural Compliance for Rebate Claim4. Maintainability of Writ Petition Due to DelaySummary:1. Entitlement to Rebate:The petitioner exported 18 consignments of tea, claiming a rebate for 10 consignments amounting to Rs. 2,19,205.42p under Notification No. 171/81-C.E., dated 17-10-1981. The court acknowledged that the petitioner fulfilled all conditions for rebate under the said notification.2. Limitation Period for Rebate Claim:The petitioner initially claimed the rebate by a letter dated 14-11-1981, dispatched under certificate of posting. However, the formal application in Form 'B' with required documents was submitted on 6-8-1982. The respondents rejected the claim citing it was filed beyond the six-month limitation period u/s 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court noted that any duty collected without authority of law is violative of Article 265 of the Constitution and should be refunded without being barred by limitation.3. Procedural Compliance for Rebate Claim:The respondents argued that the letter dated 14-11-1981 was not received and even if it was, it did not comply with the notification's requirements as it lacked necessary documents. The court held that the procedural lapse should not bar the rebate claim, emphasizing that the presumption of regularity applies to letters sent by post unless rebutted by evidence.4. Maintainability of Writ Petition Due to Delay:The respondents contended that the writ petition should not be entertained due to delay. The court found the delay sufficiently explained, as the petitioner's advocate misplaced the relevant orders, which were later found and promptly acted upon. The court cited precedents emphasizing that technical pleas should not defeat legitimate claims.Judgment:The court directed the respondents to rescind the orders dated 8-3-1984 and 25-10-1984 and refund Rs. 2,19,245.42 P to the petitioner within six weeks, stating that the petitioner is entitled to the rebate on merits and procedural lapses should not bar the claim.
TaxTMI 