1983 (10) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Respondents. [Order per : A.J.F.D'Souza, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda against Order No. V(22)18-73/79-R, dated 7-2-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. 2. The facts of the case are that the Respondents manufacture man-made fabrics falling under Tari....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....claim was filed does not check the period of limitation laid down under Rule 11. Collector (Appeals) observed that Notification No. 15012/4/75-Tex-IV/DCH dated 13-10-1978 exempted trade samples and chindies of man-made fabrics from handloom cess, giving effect from a date 2 years prior to the publication of the Rules, namely, from 13-10-1976 onwards. This establishes that there was no intention to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r authorities order confirmed. 4. When the case was called, the Respondents were not represented. For the appellant Shri Pattekar strenuously urged that under Rule 11, any refund claim must be made within six months from the date of payment and the claim in this case was rejected as time-barred. He was however unable to satisfy the Tribunal on the intention of the Government in giving retrospec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a case of payment of duty which was not made due to inadvertence error or mis-construction. We are also able to appreciate the learned Departmental Representative's argument that the claim should have been lodged at least within six months from the date of promulgation of the exemption, as there is no legal provision for such a condition. The department's argument that the exemption is silent on t....