1998 (7) 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

....sions of Section 11B of the Act. It is also submitted that the petitioner has made an application before the appropriate authority for the refund of the amount on 27-8-1982. 3.It is contended that the excess amount has been deposited in between the period 1-3-1975 and 28-2-1978. However, the petitioner acquired knowledge that under the mistaken notion of law it has deposited the amount in excess and the same is liable to be refunded to it only after the judgment passed by the Appellate Collector, Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi, dated 3-10-1981 in M/s Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad, U.P., which is reported in 1981 ECR 596 and in another case of Dabur (Dr. S.K. Burman) Pvt. Ltd. dated 31-10-1981 whereby the excess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt paid by the petitioner. 6.A bare perusal of Section 11B of the Act, it envisages that excess payment made is liable to be refunded provided if the refund application is made within a period of six months. Thus, if the application is made within the stipulated period, the department is obliged to pass necessary orders for refund. 7.In Mafatlal case (supra) while dealing with the issue of refund, their Lordships have held that the provisions of Section 17(1)(C) of the Limitation Act will also be made applicable. This provision manifests that from the date of knowledge the application can be made and the limitation prescribed under the provisions of Section 11B of the Act, referred to above, will begin from the date of knowledge. 8.The ....