H.R. Syiem, Member (T)

1. The dispute in this case is the grant of a refund o Rs. 114 450-40 by the Assistant Collector which was thought by his superior to be wrong. It is not necessary to go into the rules and the notification under which this refund was given by the Assistant Collector or why his Collector considered the refund to be mistaken. for our purpose, it is enough that a refund of Rs. 114 450-40 was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector to M/s. Kirtoskar on 17-10-1980, and his Collector issued a notice dated 15-9-1981 under Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act to recover the money. by his order F.No. V68(30)47/TE/81/871, dated 25-10-1983, the Collector set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and ordered the assessees to repay the amount of Rs. 114450-40 which had been erroneously refunded to them.

2. The learned counsel for M/s. Kirlosker Mr. Phadnis, advocate, argued that the notice of the Collector dated 15-9-1981 was time-barred since the refund order was passed on 17-10-1980, and they got the order and also received the cheque. If they thought the sum of money had been wrongly refunded, the Central Excise should have issued notice of demand wit