Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Bombay Tyre International Ltd. Etc. Etc on 7 October, 1983
6. After receipt of the above application. the Assistant Collector, vide his letter dated 4-8-1986 asked the petitioner to show cause as to why its application for refund be not rejected as barred by time. The petitioner submitted its reply dated 14-8-1986. In the said reply also it has not been stated that the excise duty was paid under protest. The petitioner only pleaded that the claim for refund has been made within three years from the date of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. -1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.), from which it came to know about the correct legal position. The Assistant Collector thereafter, by the impugned order, rejected the petitioner's claim for refund as barred by time. In the absence of any pleadings about the payment of duty under protest, the Assistant Collector was fully justified to reject the petitioner's claim for refund on the ground of limitation.