1987 (12) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llenged the order, dated 25th August, 1986 being Annexure 'E' to the petition passed by the respondent No. 1. 2. The short history of the case is that the petitioner is a manufacturer of "Margo Soap". The petitioner paid provisional excise duty on 30th June, 1984. The excise duty payable was ascertained during the period between 11th September, 1984 and 27/30 October, 1984 and the ascertained s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rved by the respondent No. 1 on the petitioner on 2nd July, 1986 asking the petitioner to show cause why its claim should not be treated as barred by limitation. The petitioner submitted its reply on 8th July, 1986. By the order, dated 25th August, 1986 the respondent No. 1 held that the petitioner's claim for refund was barred by limitation. The operative portion of that order is as follows :- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ub-rule (5) of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides as follows:- "When the duty leviable on the goods is assessed finally in accordance with the provisions of these rules, the duty provisionally assessed shall be adjusted against the duty finally assessed, and if the duty provisionally assessed falls short of, or is in excess of the duty finally assessed, the (assessee) shall pay ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is is an admitted case here that the provisional payment was less than the actual amount payable. Further amount was found payable after final assessment and payments were made by installments between the period 9th March, 1985 and 14th March, 1986. During this period the excess amount demanded and paid was found out. Obviously, the payments were adjusted against the claim as and when the installm....