This Rule was then substituted on 6th August, 1977 by G.S. R., 554 E and read as follows Rule 11.
14AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 1 of 1944 , upto a quantity number exceeding one hundred and fifty metric tonnes cleared by or on behalf of a manufacturer for home companysumption during any financial year, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon Provided that exemption under this Notification shall number be available to a manufacturer whose total production of Sodium Hydrosulphite exceeds three hundred and sixty metric tonnes during the financial year in which clearance is made.
Relevant part of the Notification on which reliance was placed for the refund is reproduced below In exercise of the powers companyferred by Sub rule 1 of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby, exempts Sodium Hydrosulphite falling under Item No.
31 CE, 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 companysequence of the same having been paid through inadvertence, error or misconstruction, 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 payment or adjustment, as the case may be.
During the financial 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.
270/77, dated 20th August, 1977, respondent filed an application for refund of duty which was paid on 150 metric tonnes of Sodium Hydrosulphite.
Claim for refund of duty 1 Any person claiming refund of any duty paid by him may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty Provided, that the limitation of six months shall number apply where any duty has been paid under protest.
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.
Appeal was filed by the respondent before the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi who by an order, dated 24th July, 1985 allowed the same.
It was, inter alia, held that the respondent herein, had number paid the duty under protest or provision and the application for refund was barred by time.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur by order, dated 21st April, 1984 rejected the said application.
The application for refund was filed on 16th July, 1980.
He came to the companyclusion that the refund Claim companyld be filed within six months from the close of the financial year, i.e. , on or before 30th September, 1980.
1346/1991 The only question involved in this appeal is whether the application for refund which was filed by the respondent before the Excise Authority was within the prescribed period of limitation.
14AA 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent was manufacturing Sodium Hydrosulphite, falling under Tariff Item No.
Hence this appeal.
It is submitted by Shri Tandon, learned Counsel for the appellant, that in deciding whether the application for refund was within the period of limitation, what has to be seen is number 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.
Relying upon the Notification No.
The appellant then filed an appeal before the CEGAT but without success.
