TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (2) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....permission to avail of proforma credit of duty paid on Acetone received by them during the period from 4-6-1979 to 10-3-1983. They did not take this credit during the relevant period. The Assistant Collector rejected the request whereupon, by a letter dated 3rd May, 1983 addressed to the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, they came up with a request that the delay in filing the application may be condoned and permission may be granted to avail of the proforma credit from 4-6-1979 onwards. They stated that they did not apply earlier due to the fact that it was not brought to their notice by anybody that such facility was permissible. During the hearing before the Collector they placed reliance on sub-rule (2B) of Rule 56A, which is as unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring the appellants and the ground taken was ignorance of the provisions of Rule 56A, the Collector rejected their request saying that the appellants had not given any convincing reasons for their inability to apply in time and for non-compliance of any of the provisions of the Rules 56A. He concluded that he did not consider it a fit case for relaxation of the provisions of the Rule 56A (2B) and rejected the request for Condonation of Delay. 3. In the appeal before us, it has been stated that the appellants have been deprived of their legitimate claim on minor technical lapse and have claimed that discretion should have been exercised in their favour. It was also stated that the appellants had submitted all the relevant documents in su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... communication of various provisions of the law among the trading and business community. He also contested the argument of the learned Consultant of the appellants and this was a case of late communication of the notification and slated that the Collector's order rejecting the request for Condonation of Delay was fully justified. He thought that the appeal should, therefore, be rejected. 6. We have given careful consideration to the grounds of appeal and the submissions made before us by both sides. As will be seen, sub-rule (2B) of Rule 56A lays down, the circumstances in which a request for Condonation of Delay may be considered and goes on to specifically say that this may be done only (emphasis supplied), when the Collector is satis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants cited the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Sri Balaji Cable Industries, Anantpur [1987 (29) E.L.T. 77] urging that recovery of full duty on inputs as well as on final product amounts to double taxation while denying the proforma credit. Further, he said that breach of procedure was of a technical nature and the petitioner's right for substantial justice in securing of proforma credit should not be denied relying on Order No. 279179 dated 31-3-1979 reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 547 (GOI) = 1979-Cencus-329-D. We find that in these two cases, the eligibility of proforma credit was an issue and not the time barring aspect. In the present case the appeal was dismissed mainly on the issue of time barring ....