TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (4) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim for refund of a duty of Rs. 28,624/-. 2. Shri J.M. Jayaseelan, ld. DR appearing for the Department submitted that the respondent herein paid .a duty of Rs. 28,624/- being the duty on a consignment sent under A.R. 3A No. 4/86-87 dated 30-4-1987 covered by G.P. 1 No. 20/86-87 by making a debit entry in their P,L,A. on 3-2-1988. The respondents claimed refund of the same by an application dated 3-10-1988 after the expiry of six months from date of payment of duty on 3-2-1988. This refund is not permissible, as the same is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 ('the Act' for short) The ld. D.R. submitted that the reasoning of the lower appellate authority in granting the refund by invoking Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication is filed after the expiry of six months. We do not find any relevance at all to the provisions relating to the warehousing facility, much less to the applicability of Rule 156B referred to in the impugned order and urged by the ld. Counsel for the respondent. The respondent having cleared the goods at concessional rate in terms of Notification No. 473/86 the question of his paying any further duty would not arise. If the respondent had paid any duty thereafter, which is not payable, unless the refund application is filed within the statutory period of limitation, the statutory authorities will have no jurisdiction to grant the same. Suffice it to refer to the ratio of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sional rate of duty. The ld. DR pleaded thereafter since the Certificate regarding the receipt of the goods at the other end has not been received, the Central Excise authorities demanded the differential duty from the respondent. The respondent after making a request for extension of time for production of the certificate regarding the receipt of the goods at the other end, paid the differential duty. He has pleaded inasmuch as the amount paid was as duty towards the goods, the refund could be claimed only in terms of Section 11B and the provisions of Rule 156B(2) will not come into play at all. He has pleaded that this Rule is applicable only in case of goods warehoused. The goods cleared by the respondents were not warehoused goods and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chapter X has to be complied with by the persons who received the goods at the concessional rate of duty. In the present case the goods had been cleared after the authorities were satisfied that the goods could be cleared at concessional rate based on the requirements of Chapter X procedure and after clearance in case any requirement in regard to Chap. X was not satisfied the demand could be raised against the L. 6 licence namely from the buyer specified in the notification. When the demand was raised, the respondents could have resisted it on the ground that they were not liable to pay the duty so far as they were concerned stating that they had .complied with the requirements of notification. However, instead of doing that they proceeded....