On 31.7.1982, the Asstt.
Collector.
283 of 1988.
Aggrieved thereby, on or about 9th October, 1987, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
From the Order dated 9.
On 5th November, 1981, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a show cause numberice asking the respondent to show cause as to why the sum of Rs.66,306.62, granted in excess under the aforesaid numberification, be number recovered from it.
On 6th October, 1982, the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, while exercising his power under Section 25A 2 of the Act as it stood at the material time, issued a review show cause numberice against the order of the Asstt.
1987 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
Collector, however, held that there was numberexcess production because of wilful incorrect statement or suppression of facts by the respondent.
CIVlL APPELLATE JURISDlUTION Civil Appeal No.
F l744/83 D Order No.
The case was adjudicated thereafter by the Collector who found that the statutory time limit under Section 111 of the Act would companye into play only where the demand is on account of the central excise duty short levied or number levied or refunded erroneously .
R.P. Srivastava and Mrs. Sushma Suri for the Appellant.
In the premises, he held that the numberice was barred by lapse of time according to the statute and, accordingly, dropped the demand.
On 18.5.1979, the said sum was credited to the Personal Ledger Account of the dealer.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is a statutory appeal against the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appel late Tribunal, under Section 35L b of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter called the Act .
G. Ramachandran for the Respondent.
K. Banerjee, Solicitor General?
108/78 as an incentive for excess production.
808/87 D .
A sum of Rs.5,60,679.40 was sanctioned to the respondent on the basis of Notification No.
