1992 (10) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a Public Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of variety of vegetable products. One of the products manufactured by the petitioners is refining of oils and in the course of oil refining, acid oil comes into existence. The petitioners in respect of their manufacture were liable to pay excise duty and it is the claim of the petitioners that under a mistake of law, the duty was paid under Tari....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....explain why the claim from May 1975 to July 1982 should not be rejected as barred by limitation prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act. The petitioners filed reply and the Assistant Collector by impugned order dated February 22,1985 held that the claim from May 1975 to July 19, 1982 was hit by the provisions of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and the petitioners ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the recovery of duty by the Department is without any authority of law. This Court held that the recovery being without any authority of law, the petitioners are entitled to refund and the provisions of limitation under the Act, which are binding on the officers exercising jurisdiction under the Act, are not binding while passing orders in writ jurisdiction. In view of catena of decisions of this ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the petitioners that they were not aware of the exemption notification is required to be accepted on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is, therefore, necessary to set aside the order of the Assistant Collector so far as rejecting the claim of refund for the period commencing from May 1975 to July 19,1982 and remit the matter to the Assistant Collector for disposal of the claim on meri....