The appellant claimed that they had paid excess Rs.2,55,172.55 from 1.4.1985 to 31.8.1985 as excise duty.
The Assistant Collector held that the refund claim for the period 1.4.1985 to 27.4.1985 was time barred for the reason that under section 11B, the relevant date for preferring the claim for a case such as that of the appellant was the date of payment of duty and, according to him, the duty had been paid by adjustment in the personal ledger account as and when goods were removed.
For the period from 1.4.1985 to 27.4.1985, the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the same was time barred.
The revised classification list was approved.
The plea of the appellant is that mere debiting in the personal ledger account should number be taken as the starting point for limitation and the relevant date should be the date on which RT 12 Returns which are filed on a monthly basis are as sessed.
The aggregate value of the clearance in the preceding year i.e. 1984 85 did number exceed Rs.75 lakhs.
The further appeal to the Tribunal was also unsuccessful.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his order dated 13.12.1985 sanctioned the refund claim only partly.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, approved the Tariff rate 15 Ad valorem on 3.6.1985 instead of the above effective rates as the appellant did number claim the exemption as per Notification No.85/85 CE dated 17.3.1985 due to ignorance.
From the Order dated 15.4.
In the case of first clearance upto an aggregate value number exceeding Rs.7.5 lakhs, the effective rates of duty is nil and in the case of next clearance of Rs.7.5 lakhs, the duty is 3.75 Ad valorem.
They made an application for refund as per rule under sec tion 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on 30.10.1985.
1988 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in Appeal No.
A revised classification list with the effective rates in respect of the products with retrospective effect from 26.3.1985 was filed on 31.10.1985.
2225 of 1986 A. Sreedharan, V.J. Francis and N.M. Popli for the Appel lant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
51 A iv of the Central Excise Tariff.
4460 Of 1988.
E Appeal No.
The appellant is the manufacturer of Hacksaw blades and Bandsaw Blades failing under Tariff Item No.
The order of the Assistant Collector was companyfirmed in the appeal by the Collector of Central Excise Appeals .
The appellant filed a classification list as per Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules 1944 on 26.3.1985 in respect of their products furnishing the tariff rate of 15 Ad valorem by mistake instead of furnishing the effec tive rates of duty as per Notification No.85/85 CE dated 17.3.1985.
The appeal is di rected against the order dated 15.4.1988 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
Ashok H. Desai, Solicitor General, Dalip Tandon and P. Parmeshwaran for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FATHIMA BEEVI, J. This is an appeal under section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
