1985 (11) TMI 123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as incentive rebate for higher production). 2.  We have heard both sides and have carefully considered the matter. We observe that the appellants' base clearances had been approved by the Assistant Collector on 29-4-1977. They crossed the base figure on 25-2-1978. Therefore, from this date onwards, they were entitled to pay duty on their clearances at the concessional rate but they went on paying it at the normal higher rate. They say that they did it because of the prevailing practice but are unable to substantiate this alleged practice. Be that as it may, the law gave them another remedy under Rule .11 to claim refund of the duty paid in excess. But the rule laid down the condition that such refund should be claimed from the Assist....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as such Rule 11 did not apply. (2)  It had been held by the various High Courts and the Supreme Court that the State was not entitled to retain any monies not due to it. The first ground has already been answered by the Appellate Collector. No doubt, prior to 6-8-1977, Rule 11 concerned itself with those claims for refund which had arisen as a result of inadvertence, error or misconstruction. But the rule was amended on 6-8-1977 to say : "(I)  Any person claiming refund of any duty paid by him may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty." The revised rule has application to the appellants' case as the rule was in g....