1991 (3) TMI 232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was received in the office of the Assistant Collector on 29-8-1986. The original authority has rejected the claim of the appellants as hit by limitation inasmuch as the refund claim had been filed beyond the period of six months and this order has been confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate authority. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants pleaded that the appellants were a new manufacturer and started clearance of their goods on payment of duty. They did not claim the benefit of Notification 85/85 to which they were otherwise eligible at the relevant time and chose to pay duty in respect of the clearances made during the relevant period. He has pleaded that after the financial year was over, the appellants took stock of the posi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nning of the financial year, whether the final clearance would exceed Rs. 75 lakhs or not would only be a matter of conjecture and this condition as set out in Para 3 of the notification can be only taken to be speculative in nature and therefore at the beginning of the financial year, the value of total clearances during the financial year was not known and the position crystalised only at the end of the financial year. He has pleaded that once the appellants at the beginning of the next financial year found that the clearances did not touch Rs. 75 lakhs they proceeded to file the refund claim within six months period of the completion of the financial year. He has cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Exci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Central Excise v. T. T. Pylunny, reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2156 and held that the limitation for claiming the refund would be the date of payment of duty and not from the end of the financial year. The relevant portion of the observation of the Hon'ble High Court in that case is extracted below:  "It was argued that whether the limit of two lakhs had been exceeded or not, would be known only at the close of the year in question and therefore, to insist on an application for refund or exemption being made with reference to the earlier point of time in the year on the mere ground that the duty had been paid during that period, would be inequitable and unjust; and would oblige the writ petitioner to make an application for refund ....