1987 (4) TMI 234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Order per : S.D. Jha, Vice-President, (J).]. - The respondent manufacturer, for excess duty paid between the period 15-7-1977 to 3-8-1977, applied for refund of duty on 24-6-1978. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division 'P', Bombay by order dated 21-7-1979 rejected the claim as barred by limitation. In appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay by Order No. V-2( 14)202....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ived from them. Smt. Chander, Departmental Representative was therefore, heard for the appellant - Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. Smt. Chander submitted that claim for refund for the excess duty paid between 15-7-1977 to 3-8-1977 was presented on 24-6-1978 i.e beyond six months limitation prescribed under Rule 11 amended with effect from 6-8-1977. Therefore, the respondents claim should be r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efund thereof arose prior to 6-8-1977 i.e. the date on which the new Rule 11 has come into force. The said right to claim refund is a vested right which has accrued to the petitioner prior to new Rule 11 or at any rate is an existing right. It is a settled principle of interpretation of statutes that a vested right or even an existing right, including a right of action is not affected or allowed o....