TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (4) TMI 265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment, however, found on examination of the factory records that the respondents had cleared the said free sale sugar on payment of duty of Rs. 1,24,095.76 only. It thus appeared that the respondents had taken a credit of Rs. 1,46,932.40 in excess of the amount actually paid by them and they were therefore required to show cause why this amount should not be debited to their Personal Ledger Account. 2. Reply to this show cause notice was sent by the respondent on 23 July, 1979. On consideration of this reply a further notice dated 22-1-1980 was issued to the respondents that the differential amount recoverable from them appeared to be Rs. 1,48,744.34 instead of Rs. 1,46,932.40 as intimated in the show cause notice dated 1-6-1979. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the sanction of the rebate was 24-11-1978, the actual date on availment of the rebate was 9-1-1979, and this would be the relevant date for determining an issue relating to time-bar. 6. The learned JDR has also urged that the grant of rebate of duty is always provisional and subject to finalisation, on adjustment, at the time of clearance and assessment of the sugar, and therefore the date of advance credit, as such, should not be considered as the final date of refund. 7. Responding Shri B.B. Gujral, Advocate, submits that the date of sanction of refund i.e. 24-11-1978 should rightly be-considered as the date of refund. In this connection he relies on the decision of the Vidarbha Mills Barar Limited v. Collector of Central....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ster. Rule 10 as it stood during the period covered by the Bombay High Court decision (supra) required that a written demand by the proper Officer should be made within 3 months from "the date of making the refund". In that case the refund had been made by issue of refund vouchers which were encashed after 24-10-1976 that being the date on which the refund vouchers were sent to the assessee, under a covering letter. The High Court observed that the encashment of the refund vouchers was not from the Department itself but by presentation to the concerned Treasury. The High Court held that in such circumstances the refund is complete by the issue of refund vouchers and it is from that date that limitation should be computed. The argument for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see also on that day. 11. In this connection we may refer to a decision of the Supreme Court where also this question (as to when a refund can be said to have been made) was considered, though not with reference to Rule 10 of the Central Excises Rules. This was in the case of Geep Flash Light Industries Ltd. (1983 E.L.T. 1596 SC). The question to be considered therein was with reference to the provisions of Section 131(5) of the Customs Act, as it then stood, read with Section 28 of the Customs Act. Section 28(3)(c) reads that for the purpose of Sub-section (1) the relevant date means, in the case where duty has been erroneously refunded, the date of refund. As earlier seen Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules during the period relevan....