1990 (9) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The facts giving rise to the passing of this order are not in dispute. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is a joint stock company governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and runs a factory at village Kolshet in Thane District. The petitioners manufacture synthetic resins, viz. (i) Finish K : V: S: Lig new; (ii) Finish- P; (iii) Finish- L. CRN; (iv) Finish L.C.R.; (v) Finish- P I; (vi) Finish- E N I Pasta; and (vii) Finish- V.K.S. The petitioners were paying excise duty on the manufacture of these products under Tariff Item No. 15A(1) of the First Schedule to the old Excise Act. The department issued trade notice dated April 22, 1977 and trade notice dated January 18, 1978 clarifying that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reference to Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules is under challenge in this petition. 4. Mr. Parikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that though the Asstt. Collector who is a creation of statute i.e. the Central Excises and Salt Act is bound by the provisions of Rule 11, the limitation prescribed therein cannot restrict the powers of this Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution in directing the department to grant refund for the entire period. The submission is correct and deserves acceptance. By catena of decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court it has now been finally concluded that it is not permissible for the department to decline refund on the ground of limitation and the defence....