TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (8) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : R. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - Though this day, only the stay application was listed for hearing, Shri Willingdon Christian, the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants, pleaded that the arguments on the appeal as well as on the stay application are one and the same, namely the issue of time bar. Though the order has been passed with regard to the denial o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on under Notification No. 43/82 dated 28-2-1982. However, during the period April 1984 - March 1985 though their value of clearance was only Rs. 2.43 lacs, they had cleared the goods on payment of duty. Subsequently they claimed the refund of duty. The refund claim was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector under his Order-in-Original dated 27-10-1986 and the cheque was issued on 30-11-1986. The pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor and he passed the order on 27-10-1986 and issued a cheque on 30-11-1986. Even at that time, they did not choose to deny the exemption for April '85 to March '86 on the ground that the turn over during April '84 - March '85 had exceeded Rs. 2.50 lacs on account of sanction of refund. The Additional Collector has held that the appellants have not indicated in the classification list filed in Apr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for exemption for April '85 - March 1986 was not revealed to the department by indicating suitably in the classification list, the extended period is applicable. 7. After hearing both the sides, we find that the undisputed factual position is that the allegation of suppression is sought to be sustained only on the ground that the applicants have not revealed the fact of claiming of refund in resp....