TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (5) TMI 154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellants. S/Shri P.G. Gokhale and R.C. Pandey, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : D.C. Mandal, Member (J)]. - These two appeals relate to the common issue involving excess production incentive granted under exemption Notification No. 198/76-C.E., dated 16-6-76. The same are, therefore, disposed of by this common order. 2. In both these cases, the claims for refund o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... E.L.T. 467 and in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. M/s. Prag Vanaspati Products, Aligarh, 1987 (27) E.L.T. 337 (Tri.), vide Order No. 515/1986-C, dated 12-7-86 in Appeal No. ED/SB/84/44-C. He also reiterated the grounds of appeals. 4. The learned Advocate Shri P.G. Gokhale relied on the decisions reported in 1983 (l4-E.L.T.-2426 (CEGAT)-Neelamalai Tea/Coffee Estates and Indus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Nadiad and as a result other officers did not know about this letter. So, the time limit of six months would apply. 5. We have considered their arguments. Out of the two decisions relied upon by the J.D.R., the case of M/s. Prag Vanaspati Products is not relevant to the facts of the present cases. The present cases relates to the refund under the excess production incentive scheme wherea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on their own nor quantify their refund claim. They could not even know as to when exactly their excess clearances would start. Since the Assistant Collector took time in giving his approval and the appellants soon thereafter quantified the amount of concession admissible to them and filed a specific refund claim, their refund claim was well in time and it was not necessary for them to pay duty un....