1984 (2) TMI 334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) Shri N. Khaitan, Senior Advocate and Kumari Rukmini Nair, Advocate, for the Appellants. Shri K.D. Tayal, S.D.R., for the Respondent. ORDER As a common point at issue is involved in these two appeals and they were argued together by the same Advocates, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2.  Appellant No. 1 owned two tea factories and appellant No. 2 owned three t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t exceed the base year figure. The Department directed the two appellants to pay back the concession availed of by them in respect of the individual factories in which there was a short-fall in clearances compared to the base year and to claim refund of the corresponding amount in respect of their factory in which there was excess clearance. The two appellants complied with the Department's direct....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt, again as per the Department's letter. They pleaded that in the circumstances their claim could not be rejected as time-barred. The Department's representative stated that each tea factory was a distinct entity and it was licensed separately under the Central Excises Act and Rules and that, therefore, the action of the Department was correct. 4. We have carefully considered the matter.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....artment. They applied for the corresponding refund quite promptly thereafter within one to two months of paying back the money. Since the time-limit for refund under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was six months, the refund claim cannot be held as time-barred. The lower authorities were not correct in reckoning the time-limit from the original duty payment from October, 1978 onwards bec....