TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (3) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant. Shri H.L. Verma, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER The facts of this case, in brief, are that the appellants were held entitled for the exemption from duty in terms of Notification No. 108/78-Central Excises, dated 28-4-1978 (commonly known as incentive rebate for higher production of sugar) for the period from 1-5-1978 to 15-8-1978. The rebate was sanctioned to them by the Assistant Colle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s payment made to the appellants was not refund of duty but a deposit and hence the time limit under Section 11A did not apply to it. The Collector further held that the time-limit of three years from the date of discovesy of the mistake as under the common law of limitation was applicable to the facts of the case and on that basis the demand was within time. Accordingly, the Collector set aside t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Collector was right in holding that the time limit of three years under the common law was applicable in this case and hence the demand was not time-barred. 3. We do not agree with the Department's view. First, no evidence has been laid before us to show that the amount paid to the appellants was advance deposit. On the other hand, the record shows that the excess production pertained to the p....