1985 (3) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri A.S. Berar, for the Appellant. 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 sanct....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, the Collector held that the excess 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. Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....learned Department's Representative, the 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....recovering back such excess payment by the Department are laid down in Section 11A of the Act. If the Department chose to issue a demand for such recovery under Section 11A, it cannot, in the same breath, say that it is not bound by the time limit laid down in that section. If, on the contrary, the department's stand is that Section 11A did not apply and the limitation under the common law applied....