MAHARAJ PAPER BOARD P LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF C EX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras confirming the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajapalayam, dated 12-6-87 and rejecting the appellant's claim for refund of Rs. 22,807/-. The appellant is a manufacturer of millboard and filed a classification on 1-4-86 claiming the benefit of Notification No. 138/86, dated 1-3-86; the same was approved. Then subsequently the appellant filed a second classification on 6-5-86 claiming the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-86. The Asst. Collector of Central Excise accorded approval to the first classification giving the appellant the benefit of Notification No. 138/86 from 1-4-86 to 5-5-86 and accorded approval to the second classification granting the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 to the appellant on and from 6-5-86. The appellant took out a refund application claiming refund on the ground that if he were to avail of Notification No. 175/86 on and from 1-4-86, he would not have to pay any duty and therefore the duty paid on the goods cleared from 1-4-86 to 6-5-86 would become refundable to the appellant if the appellant were held entitled to the benefit of Central Excise Notification 175/86 with effect from 1-4-86. The plea of the appellant was rejected by both the authorities; hence the appeal.

(2.) Shri G. Subramaniam, the learned Consultant for the appellant submits that when the appellant is indisputably entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and the fact that he did not choose to file a classification for the same on 1-4-86 and claim the benefit of a different notification in the first classification, should not be a ground to deny the appellant the benefit of Notification 175/86 and consequential relief of refund.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions mader before me. I do no find any force in the submissions of the learned consultant; admittedly the appellant filed a classification on 1-4-86 seeking to avail the benefit of Notification 138/86 and admittedly the appellant did not claim the benefit of Notification 175/86 till after he filed a second classification on 6-5-86. In such a situation it does not stand to reason as to how the appellant can claim the benefit of Notification 175/86 retrospectively from 1-4-86 and more so, take out an application for refund on that basis. This aspect of the matter in the impugned order has been very succinctly summed up by the learned Collector (Appeals), as extracted below: