TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (1) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../68(18)-15/Ref/83, dated 10-11-83 passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Dv.Il confirming the payment of Rs. 48,999.69 as duty leviable from M/s. Sarang Spring Mfg. Co. The facts of the case are that M/s. Sarang Spring Manufacturing Co. produced goods classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. They paid duty on these products during the period 1-4-82 to 15-2-83. However, they claimed exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 105/80, dated 19-6-1980 and their claim was accepted by the Asstt. Collector on 11-3-83. Thereafter, on the same day viz. 11-3-83 M/s. Sarang Spring Mfg. Co. applied for refund of duty paid by them from 1-4-82 to 15-3-83 amounting to Rs. 76,865.57. The Asstt. Collector sanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Collector (Appeals) and the reasons which prevailed with him for setting aside the Asstt. Collector's order. Inter-alia, the Collector (Appeals) held that the demand for repayment of the refund should not have been issued under Section 11 A but that the Asstt. Collector should have filed an appeal to the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35 against his predecessor's order. Shri Senthivel contended that this was a wrong interpretation of law on the part of the Collector (Appeals). He read out the provisions of Section 11 A and contended that the Asstt. Collector's order, dated 10-11-83 confirming the demand was quite legal in terms of Section 11A. Shri Senthivel argued that the power to demand repayment of refund erroneously granted was stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of M/s. Sarang Spring Co. in the appeal of the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara. 5. In reply, Shri Senthivel cited the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in 1981 E.L.T. 328. Relying on this decision, Shri Senthivel argued that the issue of a demand in terms of Section 11 A for repayment of a refund erroneously granted by a successor would not amount to review of the predecessor's order, particularly when the successor came across certain facts which were not taken into account by the predecessor. Applying the ratio of the Delhi High Court's decision in the present case, Shri Senthivel submitted that the fact that the original refund claim of M/s. Sarang Spring Mfg. Co. was time barred in part was not noticed by the Asstt.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that the provisions of Section 11A are quite explicit. For the purposes of Section 11A refund is defined thereunder in the Explanation and the Section also provides for a demand for repayment of refund erroneously granted. There is therefore no doubt that in a case like the present one Section 11A is attracted. It does not envisage review of any quasi-judicial order passed by the Asstt. Collector himself or his predecessor in office. The case of Guest Keen Williams Ltd. considered by the Tribunal in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 182 is distinguishable from the present appeal. In the former case, the Asstt. Collector had taken decision regarding the valuation of the goods manufactured by Guest Keen William Ltd. On appeal to the Collector (Appeals), the....