2004 (5) TMI 393

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....td. (formerly known as Tamilnadu Dadha Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) was engaged in the manufacture of Drugs & Pharmaceuticals clearing goods on payment of appropriate duty. The assessment was done on a provisional basis in terms of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 during the period 1993-97 as at the time of removal of the goods the Appellant did not know the actual amount of expenditure incurred/quantum allowed under the heads Freight, Transit Insurance, Turnover Tax, Cash Discount, Trade Discount and Quantitative Discount. 2. The Appellant filed proposals for finalisation of Provisional Assessment for the years 1993-94 to 1996-97. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chromepet Division, Chennai vide C.No. V/3/30/19/98, d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner of Central Excise passed an Order C.No. V/30/18/38/2001-RC, dated 8-7-2002 holding the no valid refund claims dated 23-11-98 was pending consideration in the office. The Assistant Commissioner further observed that no further correspondence would be entertained in this regard. 8. Against the above order the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the same was allowed vide Order-in-Appeal No. 140/2002/M-III, dated 7-11-2002 in favour of the Appellant. The appeal filed by the Department against the above order was rejected vide CESTAT's Order No. 761/2003, dated 18-9-2003 [2003 (158) E.L.T. 94 (T)]. 9. In pursuance of the above order of the Hon'ble Tribunal the Deputy Commissioner of Central Ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... they have to pay the department a sum of Rs. 7,300/- for the year 93-94, as a result the finalization of the Provisional Assessment. In Refund Claim dated 1-2-2002, the assessee have claimed a sum of Rs. 11,03,327 as refund for the year 93-94 as a result of finalization order dated 29-6-98 of Provisional Assessment for the year 93-94. As per Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for the refund of such duty to the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner before the expiry of one year from the relevant date. In this case, the assessee has claimed the refund of duty for Rs. 11,03,327 only on 1-2-2002 after the expiry of one year of the finalization order i.e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hould be entitled to claim it. Rule 10 of Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure Rules), 1982 also empowers the Tribunal to rest its decision on any other grounds other than those urged in the memorandum of appeal. Moreover, once a refund claim is preferred, the claim may be for more or less amount. But, in our view, the requirement is of preferring the claim in the prescribed time-limit. Even if the amount is not mentioned, it would not and cannot jeopardize the interest of the Appellant". 14. Various other contradictions in the impugned Proceedings aggravates the sense of injustice felt by the Appellant. To quote him. "It may be interesting to note that the Deputy Commissioner thought it fit to issue show....