Collector of Central Excise Vs. Delhi Cloth Mills - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of the hon'ble supreme court. however, he leaves it to the discretion of the bench.2. we have heared both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. in the matter before us, the facts are not disputed. the duty amount was paid on 7-12-1979 and upto 16-4-1980, whereas the refund claim was filed on 18-6-1980. during the course of arguments, we were told by shri anand, the learned advocate, that the refund claim which was filed within the period of six months was duly accepted by the revenue authorities and as such we need not go into the other details. hon'ble supreme court in the case of samrat international (p) ltd. v. collector of central excise reported in 1992 (58) e.l.t. 561, in para 4 had held as under : "the appellants' contention before the authorities was that the date of assessment would be the date of payment of duty within the meaning of clause (f) above. we agree with the learned solicitor general that this argument is not tenable. where an assessee maintains a personal ledger a/c, duty is paid by way of debit therein and goes to reduce the amount of deposit paid by the assessee. it is not mere adjustment entry; it is an effective.....

Judgment:

1. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. Sh. Prabhat Kumar, the learned SDR who has appeared on behalf of the appellant pleaded that in the present matter the issue involved is whether the date of payment is to be considered or the date of finalisation of the RT 12 returns, for recurring limitation for grant of refunds. Shri Prabhat Kumar, the learned SDR pleaded that the issue is securely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samrat International (P) Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561 (S.C.).

The learned Departmental Representative further argued that there are earlier judgments on the subject viz. (in the case of Miles India Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) and in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v.Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills, reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478. Shri K.K. Anand, the learned Advocate who has appeared on behalf of the respondents has fairly agreed with the judgment of the apex Court. He has no objection for following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, he leaves it to the discretion of the Bench.

2. We have heared both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. In the matter before us, the facts are not disputed. The duty amount was paid on 7-12-1979 and upto 16-4-1980, whereas the refund claim was filed on 18-6-1980. During the course of arguments, we were told by Shri Anand, the learned Advocate, that the refund claim which was filed within the period of six months was duly accepted by the Revenue Authorities and as such we need not go into the other details. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samrat International (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561, in Para 4 had held as under : "The appellants' contention before the authorities was that the date of assessment would be the date of payment of duty within the meaning of Clause (f) above. We agree with the learned Solicitor General that this argument is not tenable. Where an assessee maintains a personal ledger A/c, duty is paid by way of debit therein and goes to reduce the amount of deposit paid by the assessee. It is not mere adjustment entry; it is an effective payment".

In view of the above observations, we very respectfully follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and set aside the impugned order. In the result the appeal is allowed.