TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (7) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial year, 1979-80 and particularly in respect of the period from 25th April, 1979 to 29th July, 1979 the respondent had paid duty of excise on about 323.651 metric tonnes. 3. At the end of the financial year, the respondent realised that its production of Sodium Hydrosulphite in the financial year 1979-80 was less than 360 metric tonnes. Relying upon the Notification No. 270/77, dated 20th August, 1977 respondent filed an application for refund of duty which was paid on 150 metric tonnes on Sodium Hydrosulphite. The application for refund was filed on 16th July, 1980. Relevant part of the notification on which reliance was placed for the refund is reproduced below :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at has to be seen is not only the terms of the aforesaid notification dated 20th August, 1977 but Rule 11 and Rule 173J which are relevant to the present case and which read as follows : Amendment : Rule 11 was substituted by Notification No. 31-C.E., dated 29-9-1951 and read as under :- "No duties or charges which have been paid or have been adjusted in an account-current maintained with the Collector under rule 9, and of which repayment wholly or in part is claimed in consequence of the same having been paid through inadvertence, error or mis-construction, shall be refunded (unless the claimant makes an application for such refund under his signature and lodges it with the proper officer within three months from the date of such pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f short levy or refund of excess levy. - The provisions of rules 10 and 11 shall apply to the assessee as if for the expression 'three months', the expression 'one year' were substituted in those rules." 8. Rule 11 provides that if any duty has been paid through inadvertence, error or misconstruction or the said duty has been adjusted on current account maintained with the Collector under Rule 9 and there has been an inadvertence error or misconstruction then an application for refund should be lodged with the appropriate officer within three months from the date of such payment or adjustment as the case may be. The said rule would have no application in the present case because it was not the case of the respondent that any payment or a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitation is to be computed from the end of the financial year. 11. The plain and unambiguous words of Rule 11 read with Rule 173J are that the period of limitation commence from the date of payment or date of adjustment, in case if there is a current account maintained under Rule 9. It is not as if in the instant case, the respondent did not have time to file an application for refund. As we have already seen the period in respect of which refund is claimed is 25th April, 1979 to 29th July, 1979. The application for refund could have been made after the conclusion of the financial year by 25th April, 1980. But the respondent have filed the said application only on 16th July, 1980. 12. Shri Tandon has drawn our attention to large numbe....