1992 (11) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s admitted that out of the same amount the amount of Rs. 40,791.15 and Rs. 4,42,724.00 have already been refunded to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for the balance amount as aforesaid for which he has made a prayer. The challenge made by the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 by not disposing of the same is acting as against the instruction of the Central Board of Excise and Customs (Annexure 10 to the writ petition). According to the petitioner on account of this claim of refund which is pending since long, the petitioner is suffering a great financial loss. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the petitioner has submitted a rebate claim under Notification No. 132/82 dated 21s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....table shall not exceed the amount of duty of excise payable on free sale sugar or levy sugar. Hence no amount under the captioned notification is pending payment to the petitioner. Similarly in Paragraph 19 of the counter-affidavit it has further been stated that there is no amount pending payment except one claim towards Notification No. 132/82 dated 21st April, 1982 for brown sugar, namely 1415 quintals which is pending due to non-receipt of test memo for 827 quintals of Below Indian Standard Sugar which was reprocessed by the petitioner on which rebate has already been allowed. This Paragraph 19 has not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit. Looking to the overall facts emerged from the petition, the claim of the petitioner for a direct....