Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.16 seconds)
Collector Of Central Excise vs Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. on 4 August, 1987 cites

Collector Of Central Excise vs Malwa Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. on 30 September, 1985

5. We have considered the submissions of both sides. As already noted, the show cause notices did not allege any suppression or mis-statement of facts on the part on the respondent. The show cause notices, as seen from the record, seem to have proceeded on the basis that the rebate originally sanctioned was provisional subject to any later adjustment that might be found necessary. This stand of the department has been negatived by the Tribunal in its decision in the case of the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Malva Sugar Mills, Co. Dhuri Cegat, in which it has been held that rebate was nothing but refund and a rebate or refund once given could not be held to be provisional. Inasmuch as, therefore, no suppression or any of the other ingredients required by law, was alleged in the show cause notices and held to be established on the basis of evidence, the question of invoking the extended period of limitation for recovery of erroneous refund would not arise. In this view, the demand for Rs. 34,214.33 on the ground that the rebate had exceeded the actual quantum of exemption admissible on the quantity of sugar cleared out of the factory must be held to be barred by limitation since the notice was issued after the normal period of limitation.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1