Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1999 (9) TMI 903

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is a registered small-scale industrial unit and is undisputedly entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. After obtaining the licence in January, 1992, the appellant filed a classification list effective from 17th January, 1992 claiming the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 which granted exemption up to an aggregate value clearances of Rs. 30,000,00/- subject to the condition that  for any single tariff item, the clearances value was not exceeded Rs. 20,000,00/-. The said classification list was approved by the proper officer on 27-7-1992 and was conveyed to the appellants by the Assistant Collector vide his letter dated 23-12-1992. Vide the said approval, the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 21-7-1992 which was filed in reply to the earlier show cause notice dated 16-7-1992. Vide the show cause notice dated 2-7-1993, the department proposed to reject the refund claim on the ground that the same had been filed after a period of six months from the relevant date and barred by limitation. The refund claim was also proposed to be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The said show cause notice culminated into the impugned order passed by the Assistant Collector vide which he admitted the refund claim on merits but rejected the same on the ground of time-bar. The Assistant Collector also observed that the amount of duty involved in the instant case, was not ultimately collected from the customers resulting in no unjust....