TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (10) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer points out excess payment of excise duty in the assessment memorandum of RT 12 returns arising out of finalisation of price lists by the Assistant Commissioner. (2) Whether or not the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are applicable to all cases where refund of excise duty paid in excess become due for any reason? (3) Whether an application for refund is to be made by the concerned assessee under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in a case where the assessing officer calculates the quantum of excess excise duty paid and indicates the same in the RT 12 assessment and where such quantification arises from finalisation of price lists by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. 2.1 Before I deal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Excises and Salt Act, 1944, who is the competent officer to sanction refund of duty paid in excess.     Since the RT 12 returns ate assessed by the Superintendent in terms of Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Respondents on their understanding of the said Rule took suo motu the credit of excess duty shown by the Superintendent on each of the returns. That amount comes to Rs. 7,68,245.49 in respect of Appeal E-66/87 and Rs. 14,650.60 in respect of Appeal E-67/87. Simultaneously, they filed appeals to the Collector (Appeals) against the Superintendent's direction of filing separate refund claims for the excess duty paid by them. These appeals were rejected by the Collector (Appeals) vide his order dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so because this is the mandate of Rule 173-I. The Superintendent while giving a direction to the respondents herein for filing separate refund application was going against the expressed provision of Rule 173-I(2). It was, therefore, held that suo motu credits taken by the respondents herein of excess duty shown to have been paid by them on assessment of RT 12 returns by the Range Superintendent was correct in law in terms of Rule 173-I(2). The Tribunal also held that the respondents were fully supported for this view by the case of Simplex Mills [1989 (44) E.L.T. 259] and of this Zone's Division Bench judgment in the case of Balaji Fasteners [1990 (46) E.L.T. 543]. The Tribunal further held that Division Bench judgment of this Zone in the....