TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (1) TMI 329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellants are engaged in the manufacture of teleprinter tapes/ rolls. They submitted a claim for refund amounting to ₹ 96,447.09 paise being the duty paid by them on teleprinter tapes/rolls during the period from 9-7-1975 to 17-5-1977. The claim was in pursuance of Trade Notice No. 93/Paper-4/77 dated 28-5-1977. The Assistant Collector of Central-Excise, Calcutta-II, Division, rejected the claim by his order dated 5-6-1978 on the ground that "The Rule of Law on notices contemplates that a notice is effective from the date of issue". The period of the claim being prior to the date of issue of the trade notice, he rejected the claim. In accordance with the Calcutta High Court's decision, the Collector reviewed the Assistant Collector'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see had executed a B-13 bond on 27-3-1976. Under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for provisional assessment and the said bond was accepted on 10-9-1976. No question of limitation was raised by the lower authorities in respect of the claim. At any rate, the limitation at the relevant time was only with regard to claims for refund of duties paid through inadvertence, error or misconstruction. In this context, reference was made to the Bombay High Court's decision in the Swedeshi Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (1982 ECR 165D) wherein it had been laid down that the limitation in Central Excise Rule 11 was in respect of arithmetical calculation mistakes. The purchases of printing paper from the open market should be presumed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble burden would be cast on thousands and thousands of persons who purchase their requirements of goods not from the manufacturers of the goods (securing, in the process, evidence of payment of excise duty on the goods in the shape of gate passes etc.) nor even from the first-stage wholesalers but from retail points several stages removed from the manufacturers. It will -be impossible, leave alone impracticable, for such purchasers to prove the duty paid character of the goods they buy. In the circumstances, it will be for the department to establish the non-duty paid character of the goods, if they allege the goods to be non-duty paid. This is also the ratio of the Delhi High Court decision in Sulekh Ram and Sons v. Union of India and Othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s order that the assessee can get benefit only in respect of the quantity purchased on 13-12-76 from M/s. Nalikul was wrong. The benefit given by the Collector must be given from the date of execution of the bond for provisional assessment. Then again, the Collector seems to have erred in co-relating the dates of market purchases of printing paper with the date of acceptance of the B-13 bond. What was material was not the dates of purchase of the printing paper from the market but the dates of clearance of the T.P. rolls. Similarly, there is no question of making any deduction on account of wastage in manufacture since the refund claim is of duty paid on T.P. rolls and not the duty paid on the base printing paper. 7. In all the aforesaid....