HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF C. EX.
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
R. Jayaraman, Member (T) -
(1.) THIS is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. PPM.1446/BI -722/87, dated 26 -5 -1988. rejecting the appellants' appeal.
(2.) THE undisputed factual position is that the appellants filed a provisional AR -I for Budget day clearance and paid duty in advance, on assessment made by the proper officer. However, since no clearance took place on the Budget day, the final ARI was assessed to 'Nil' duty. The amount of Rs. 6763.80, which was paid under provisional AR I was claimed as refund of duty by making suitable endorsement on the RT 12 return for the month of February. It, however, was not considered by the Supdt. and the appellants were directed to file a regular refund claim, which came to be filed before the Asstt. Collector beyond a period of six months. Hence, refund claim was rejected as time barred. Appeal against the said order was also rejected.
(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides, I find that the payment on provisional AR I was itself a deposit in respect of anticipated clearance on the Budget day. When no clearance has taken place, the amount collected under AR I on a provisional basis towards the anticipated clearance has to be given back by making suitable credit in the PLA on the very same date of final assessment. It is not a case where any adjudication is involved. It is a simple and straight case of restoring the deposit made towards the anticipated clearance to be made on the Budget day; but no clearance actually effected on that day. In the circumstances, the Supdt. ought to have allowed the credit in PLA, without directing the appellants to resort to refund procedure. In this view of the matter, appeal is allowed with consequential relief.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.