TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (3) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. [Order]. - Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows :- 1.1 The Appellant herein submitted a refund claim of excess duty paid by him on account of provisional higher valuation on 13-9-1993 in old proforma, i.e. Appendix 1 against clearance of the goods on 29-5-1993 when the duty at higher valuation was paid by him. On 11-2-1994, a letter was issued from the Office of the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uyers. Accordingly, he allowed the refund of duty of Rs. 37,050/- to the Appellant. The Commissioner of Central Excise, in exercise of his powers under Section 35E of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was of the view that since refund claim on revised proforma was filed on 25-2-1994, it was beyond the period of six months. Therefore, the refund claim should have been rejected. The Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, which guidance was given much later by the Assistant Collector by issue of its letter dated 11th February, 1994, the Appellant would have certainly filed the claim in the revised proforma well within time of six months inasmuch as the Appellant still had time of more than two months to file the refund application. He submits that the lower appellate authority has taken a highly technical view o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rities. Learned Advocate, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed treating the refund claim having filed within time and the burden has not been passed on to the customers. 3.1 Opposing the contentions, learned JDR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities on the question of time bar. On the question whether the burden has been passed on or not, the lower authority has not applied....