The aggregate value of the clearance in the preceding year i.e. 1984 85 did number exceed Rs.
The revised classification list was approved.
The order of the Assistant Collector was companyfirmed in the appeal by the Collector of Central Excise Appeals .
2,55,172.55 from 1 4 1985 to 31 8 1985 as excise duty.
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 further appeal to the Tribunal was also unsuccessful.
The appellant claimed that they had paid excess Rs.
51 A iv of the Central Excise Tariff.
75 lakhs.
The plea of the appellant is that mere detailing 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 assessed.
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.
85/85 CE dated 17 3 1985.
85/85 CE dated 17 3 1985 due to ignorance.
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 S. 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.
In the case of first clearance up to an aggregate value number exceeding Rs.
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 effective rates of duty as per Notification No.
7.5 lakhs, the duty is 3.75 ad valorem.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his order dated 13 12 1985 sanctioned the refund claim only partly.
7.5 lakhs, the effective rates of duty is nil and in the case of next clearance of Rs.
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.
The appeal is directed against the order dated 15 4 1988 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
Fathima Beevi, J. This is an appeal under S. 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
They made an application for refund as per rule under S. 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on 30 10 1985.
The appellant is the manufacturer of Hacksaw blades and Bandsaw Blades falling under Tariff Item No.
