1990 (9) TMI 165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... they had not filed a declaration as required under the said notification. The learned Collector (Appeals) also took the view that a notification was required to be construed strictly in the light of the Tribunal's order cited by him and con-firmed the order of the Assistant Collector. 3. It was their submission that in this case at the beginning of the year they had secured an order worth Rs. 24,37,000/- from U.P. Electricity Board. Hence they did not file the declaration. Subsequently, however, their total value of clearances did not exceed the prescribed limit by Rs. 15 lakhs. Hence they filed the refund claim. 4. At this stage a question arose whether the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Bench. The learned Coun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....phasise and reiterates that the learned Collector (Appeals) had rightly cited and relied upon the Tribunal's order in the case of Batliboy & Co. reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 118 in accordance with which it is the accepted legal position that a notification should be construed strictly. 9. In this case since they had admittedly not filed the declaration they are not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. 10. We observe that first and foremost we have to address ourselves to the points of jurisdiction raised by the learned SDR. In this connection we note that in terms of Section 35(D) those cases are required to be heard by Special Benches which involve, inter alia, a question having a relation to the rate of duty of exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to be filed in the normal course in terms of the language of the Notification 80/80. Admittedly no such declaration was filed initially as the appellant had no reason to believe that their production would not exceed prescribed limit in view of a large order in hand. Subsequently however it did not actually exceed the limit prescribed under the aforesaid notification. The question which has arisen therefore is whether in view of these facts and circumstances the benefit of notification could be allowed or was required to be denied to them. In this connection we notice that in the aforesaid case of Himachal Air Products the North Regional Bench has observed inter alia that "The adjudicating authority's contention for denying the refund to....