1983 (10) TMI 257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctor, Central Excise, rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 2870/- made by the respondents herein. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are not in dispute. The respondents, M/s. Niranjan Battery Corporation lodged a claim for Rs. 2870/- of duty paid falling under T.I. No. 31 during the period from April 1978 to July 1978 under compounded levy on battery parts. This claim was stated to have been lodged on 22-3-1979. The Asstt. Collector rejected the claim on the ground that it was barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which will be hereinafter referred to as `the Rules'. Feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Bombay. They contended that Rule 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Section 35-B has preferred this appeal. 4. Shri N.K. Pattekar, the learned J.D.R. contended that admittedly the respondents paid duty between 27-3-1978 and 22-6-1978, and therefore, their application for refund made on 22-3-1979 beyond the period of 6 months was clearly barred and in the said circumstances, the Collector (Appeals) committed an error in holding that the claim was not barred. Shri Pattekar also urged that the observation contended in the learned Collector's order that the payment made by the appellants were not duty but advances is incorrect. He contended that the relevant rule that is applicable to the facts of the case is Rule 96YY of the Rules. 5. As we were satisfied that the appeal did not merit under co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on shall have to be treated as an application for necessary relief including the refund if any, they are entitled to. Since that application was very much within the limitation prescribed under Rule 11, the question of their claim being barred under the said rule does not arise. The subsequent letter dated 22-3-1978 addressed to the Supdt. should in our opinion be treated as a reminder to the departmental authorities to grant the statutory relief to which the respondents were entitled. This apart the perusal of Rule 96YY makes it clear that a statutory obligation cast on the Central Excise Officers to recalculate the duty whenever there is alteration in the rates of duty or in the limit of exemption, and thereafter, to refund to the manufac....