TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (2) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Udyog, Aurangabad have filed a Revision Application under old Section 36 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 to the Government of India which has been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 36-P ibid and is to be treated as an appeal to the Tribunal. When the appeal was called out for hearing on 27-2-1986 none appeared for the appellants. However, a letter dated 18-1-1986 from the au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er starts operation which was the position under earlier Notification No. 96/75 dated 30-4-1975. The appellants contend that they started working the crusher only on 29-12-1975 and the centrifugal was working from 8-1-1976. They argue that the appellants could not take advantage of the Notification No. 240/75 dated 29-12-1975 because the same was received very late. They submitted that they had ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The duty was required to be paid in advance. The Notification No. 240/75 dated 29-12-1975 was effective from that date. There was no proof that the centrifugal was working only from 8-1-1976. The Assistant Collector had correctly observed that the centrifugal normally starts operation 3 to 4 days after the crushing of the cane. Except the RG-21 account, there was no evidence in support of the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad been discharged already. The change brought by the Notification No. 240/75 dated 29-12-1975 does not affect this period. Therefore, the duty for this period has been correctly paid and no refund is due to the appellants in this behalf. As regards the refund of duty for the week beginning from 1-1-1976 to 7-1-1976, the Notification No. 240/75 dated 29-12-1975 is applicable. Since there was a del....