1996 (9) TMI 410

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant herein as time barred . The appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 7,93,333.20 on 6-9-1988 for the duty paid during 9-5-1985 to 18-10-1985 on the ground that the goods were exempted from duty as per Deemed Export Notification 211/85, dated 24-9-1985. Since no duty was payable they claimed refund thereof which had been paid erroneously. Show cause notice was issued on 26-9-1988 asking them to show cause why their refund claim should not be rejected as it had been filed beyond six months time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 because the duty was paid till 9-5-1985 to 18-10-1985 whereas the refund claim was filed on 6-9-1988 after a period of nearly 3 years. In the show cause notice it was all....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s has also been considered. Therefore, the learned Counsel urged that in this case the appellant letter of 3-10-1985 constituted a letter of protest for the period subsequent to that date under Rule 233B and that the same letter would constitute a refund claim and the relevant date under Section 11B has to be calculated from that date only. The learned Departmental Representative Shri Satnam Singh contended that there is a clear non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 233B in this case. The learned Departmental Representative referred to the vairous provisions of Rule 233B which have not been complied with by the appellant. 2. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties. Formal refund claim in this has b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot have the eligibility for the exemption. The necessary CT-2 certificates for operating under the exemption notification were not yet in their possession. Therefore, the contention of this letter is sufficient to constitute refund claim under Section 11B is unacceptable. The letter of the assessee considered by the Tribunal in the Sirpur Paper Mills case was also not parallel with the nature of the letter of 3-10-1985 of the appellant herein. There it was a clear case of the assessee seeking the refund on the ground of wrong classification of the product in the approved classification list under the Central Excise Tariff giving reasons for their claim for classification under Tariff Item having lower rate of duty. Therefore, on this ground....