1988 (4) TMI 64

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bars, rectangular rods, all having thickness about 10 mm, hereinafter they are referred to as "the said goods". On 1st of March, 1975, a new item, being Tariff Item No. 68 was introduced tor the purpose of Central excise. Immediately thereafter, the Superintendent of Central Excise wrote a letter to the petitioner company that it should classify its product under Tariff Item No. 68 which suggestion, however, was not accepted by the petitioner. 2. On 20th of January 1976, rejecting the petitioner's contention that the said goods were classifiable under Item No. 26A, the Assistant Collector passed an order directing that the said goods were excisable under Tariff Item No. 68. This order was not appealed against. The petitioner paid duty as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the period from 1976 onwards. It was the contention of the petitioner company in its refund application that in the light of the decision of the Central Government, which decision has now been accepted by the authorities in Bombay, the petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount paid by it because the goods covered by Tariff Item No. 26A were exempted by the notification referred to above. This application was admittedly not made within the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. Hence, it was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his order dated 4th of September, 1980 which is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition. 5. Mr. Bhandare contends that the view taken by the A....