1986 (10) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Tirunelveli through the Superintendent of Central Excise, Tirunelveli. This was rejected by the Assistant Collector under order dated 17-7-1980 on the ground that the refund claim was received in the Assistant Collector's office on 10-4-1980, after the expiry of the period prescribed under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. On appeal this order was upheld by the Appellate Collector under order dated 2-3-1981. The appellants preferred a revision petition to the Central Government which, on transfer, is now before us as this deemed appeal. 2. We have heard Shri Harish Salve, Advocate for the appellant and Shri A.K. Rajhans, JDR for the Department. 3. Shri Salve claims that the existing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the basis that in view of the wording of trade notice No. 206/80 of the concerned Collectorate a reasonable inference could be made that earlier there must have been a practice under which applications for refund were being presented to the Superintendent who used to process the same and submit it to the Assistant Collector. Based on the said conclusion the Tribunal held that it would be the date of presentation in the office of the Superintendent that would be the date of refund claim. This decision was referred to and followed in the Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce Co. case. Shri Salve therefore, submits that in the present instance also it may be seen from the endorsement of the Superintendent dated 13-6-1979 in the refund claim of the s....