1988 (6) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....D.R., for the Respondent. [Order per : G. Sankaran, Senior Vice-President]. - This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 728-CE/DLH/84 dated 22.9.1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P and P medicines, falling under Item No. 14E of the Central Excise Tar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 28.7.1982 for Rs. 2,026.25 covering the period 1.2.1982 to 31.3.1982. It was contended that the total value of clearances during 1981 -82 were to the extent of Rs. 8,72,164.65 only and that, therefore, they were eligible for full duty exemption on the goods upto the value of Rs. 7.5 lakhs and 25% duty exemption on the balance. The Assistant Collector dismissed the claims because the appellants h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cue of such appellants. The appeal was dismissed on this basis. It is this order which is under challenge before us. 3. We have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal, consultant, for the appellants and Shri C.V.Durghayya, DR, for the respondent. 4. The appellants do not deny that they did not claim the benefit of notification 80/80 in the relevant classification list but they contend that they were neverthele....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gh Court has held, in the context of Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, that the department cannot be allowed to take advantage of the mistake committed by the petitioner in paying a higher amount to the department and the department cannot be allowed to retain any such amount which it would not have received but for the mistake on the part of the petitioner in paying it in the first place. In....