TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (7) TMI 110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary, 1969 and 27th July, 1972 passed by respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 respectively refusing to refund the excise duty paid by the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacture of iron and steel products. Between the period March 1966 and August 1967 the petitioner firm manufac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch, 1967 to 8th May, 1967 the petitioner firm paid Rs. 2,432.92 as differential duty. Another quantity of similar products was cleared between 2nd June, 1967 and 19th August, 1967 the petitioner paid Rs. 3,289.22 as differential duty. The petitioner firm paid this duty under protest which was noted on the AR 1 form. By a trade notice dated 22nd June, 1967 issued by the Collectorate of Central Exci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... months and were, therefore, time-barred. 4. The short question for determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioner firm was entitled to get the refund of the duty paid by them and whether the petitioner could take advantage of the trade notice dated 22nd June, 1967. 5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could apply for refund only after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itizen. In the present case, since the trade notice was issued on 22nd June, 1967 the refund applications which were made on 26th August, 1967 were within the time prescribed by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The petitioner could not have made the application till the position had been clarified. In any event Govt. should not stand on technicalities and refuse the legitimate claim of i....