TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (4) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed goods are entitled to avail set-off of the duty paid on the components and inputs falling under T.I. No. 68 and utilised in the manufacture of the finished goods. The appellants were under the impression that the permission of the Department was necessary for availing the benefit of the set-off. They submitted an application on 5-3-1979 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Anantapur requesting for such a permission. Since there was no reply, a reminder was sent on 11-5-1979. The Superintendent gave written permission to avail of set-off duty with effect from 17-5-1979. The Superintendent also directed the appellant to file a statement showing the quantity of the duty paid inputs used in the manufacture of the bulbs as per Notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted to avail of set-off duty from 17-5-1979. They were also asked to furnish a statement showing the quantity of inputs which was filed on 2-6-1979. The learned Consultant urged that the appellant had expressed even on 5-3-1979 by his letter, his intention to claim the benefit of the notification and hence refund should be ordered from that date. The rejection of the refund claim on the ground that the statements were furnished at a later date would be not justified as submission of the statement was a procedural formality. In respect of his contention, he relied on the ruling reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 135 (Tribunal) (Chemiequip Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Thane). The West Regional Bench held that the rules of procedure were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufacturer should furnish, to the proper officer, a statement as prescribed with a declaration and a certificate by the Chartered Accountant. She argued that the lower authorities were right in holding that the appellant was not entitled to refund at any rate prior to 17-5-1979 though the Department could have very well insisted that the refund could be only for the period after 2-6-1979 when the statement was actually received. She relied on 1978 E.L.T. (J 350) (M/s. Hemraj Gordhandas) in respect of interpretation of notification. 5. Notification No. 178/77-C.E. gives relief in respect of excise duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the finished products. The subsequent Notification No. 295/77 introduced a condition that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the decision because he had not complied with the requirements of the notification. Since he had not furnished the statement, he was called upon to furnish the statement in the proforma as in the said notification. This statement was furnished on 2-6-1979. As rightly contended by Mrs. Zutshi, the Department would have been well within their rights if they had allowed the refund only from 2-6-1979 when the statement was actually received by the Department. Of course, they have granted refund from 17-5-1979. On that ground, it cannot be said that the period has to be enlarged from 5-3-1979 when the appellant wrote his letter. On the facts of the case, it is manifest that the authorities below have rightly held that the appellant furnishe....