TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (4) TMI 120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri J.N. Nair, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The issue for determination in these appeals which arise out of a common order is the admissibility of refund claims submitted within time to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise though forwarded to the Assistant Collector beyond the period prescribed in Section 11B of the Central Excises and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Date of Order Order 1. 6-12-1985 Claim for Rs. 7404.67 allowed -Rs. 5518.01 rejected 2. 9-12-1985 Claim for Rs. 10684.23 allowed Claim for Rs. 10785.96 passed for Rs. 10371.11 & remaining claim for Rs. 414.85 rejected. 3. 9-12-1985 Entire claim sanctioned 4. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay allowed all 3 appeals filed by the Department against these orders. Hence the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayar Tea Co. Munnar v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin reported in 1990 (30) ECR 518. The view of the Tribunal also bears the seal of approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which by its order dated 7-5-1991 dismissed the appeal filed by the Department against CEGAT Order No. 131/87-B1 dated 2-3-1987 - Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Carbon Industries Pvt. Ltd. in which the Tribunal had h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... receipt of information from the Collector. Therefore, we hold that this claim is not time barred and as there is no dispute otherwise regarding eligibility for refund, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the amount of refund of Rs. 21,055.34. 8. Regarding the admissibility of the claim for the period 29-12-1977 to 30-6-1978, a doubt arose as to the period of limitation provided for under....