TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (12) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sistant Collector of Central Excise, Howrah North Division. By his said order, the Assistant Collector had rejected their refund claim as time barred which decision was upheld by Collector (Appeals) leading to the present appeal. 2. Shri A.K. Bhowmik, learned Consultant for the appellants pointed out that in this case the appellants who are a small-scale paper mill had paid higher duty than what they were required to, since they did not get the required Notification (No. 92/84 dated 18-4-1984) in time. As soon as they came to know about the same they wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Central Excise on 17lh May, 1984 pointing out that they had paid an excess amount of Rs. 4,109 (Basic duty) and Rs. 205.43 (Spl. Duty). They had reque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ECR 2429 (Tribunal) - K.B. Foams Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore. - Notification 198/76. Excess production incentive. Refund claim not submitted in the prescribed form not to be rejected in the absence of any rule making it mandatory. Approval of declaration starting point for limitation. (2) 1985 (21) E.L.T. 266 (Tribunal) = 1985 ECR 752 CEGAT - Balaram Chini Mills. The date from which clearance of excess production started. Notification 146/74 for sugar applied. The letter taken as a refund claim. (3) 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1274 - New Jatiaga Valley Tea Estates Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong. Notification 198/76. When the assessee submitted the prescribed declaration to the A.C. it has to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, Meerut. The act of this application having been addressed to the Assistant Collector and having been presented to the jurisdictional Range Superintendent who entertained the same and passed it on to the office of the Assistant Collector has to be held to tantamount to making application to the Assistant Collector. The Office of the Superintendent is part of the Assistant Collector's office. (10) 1986 (23) E.L.T. 174 (Tribunal) - Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. Claim filed with the Superintendent. Ambica Khandsari case relied upon. (11) 1985 (20) E.L.T. 52 - Embarkation Headquarters. In the matter of grant of refund the authorities are required to consider the justness of the claim and they should not be swayed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed out the excess payment made by them and requested for refund of the said excess paid amount would constitute a valid refund claim. As certain cases have been cited as supporting such a proposition, I have gone through the same. I find that in the cases relating to K.B. Foams Pvt. Ltd., Balaram Chini Mills, New Jatiaga Valley Tea Estates Ltd., Nahorjan Tea Company, Neelamalai Tea/Coffee Estates and Industries, the refund arose as a result of applying Exemption Notification No. 198/76 on account of excess production incentive. The Assistant Collector's prior decision regarding excess production and date of crossing the excess production was necessary. The date of the Assistant Collector's decision communicating the said information to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount paid by them constituted a claim was for a refund. Applying the same test to the present appeal. I find that the appellants had staked a claim vide their letter dated 17-5-1984.1 am inclined to give them the benefit of doubt when they state that they were informed by the departmental officers that their claim vide the said letter would be disposed of while finalising the RT 12 assessment and they would get the credit in their PLA in terms of Rule 173-1. Only when the RT 12 was belatedly completed after nearly three years did they come to know that the said credit was not given and that they would be entitled to refund if they had filed a refund claim in time. Only then did they file a formal refund claim. I hold that they had alread....