1994 (11) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oms, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi is whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim for refund for the period it was beyond six months from the date the duty was paid. 2. Various items of porcelain manufactured by the appellant for use as components of insulating device was assessed to duty under Tariff Item 23B-CET. In English Electric Co. of India Ltd. v. Sup....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of limitation provided under Rule 11, as it then stood, for making an application for refund from the date the duty was paid. In appeal before the Tribunal, it was claimed that since duty had been paid under mistake of law, the claim for refund was not governed by the provisions of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the period applicable was three years from the date of knowledge of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and it was in those cases that the Court held that the period of limitation was three years. 4. In our opinion, the controversy stands concluded by the decision of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/s. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Jalandhar, 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.) = 1988 Supp. SCC 683. The relevant observations are extracted below : "But in making claims for....