G.SANKARAN, H.R.SYIEM, M.SANTHANAM
Castrol Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta – Respondent
M. Santhanam, Member (J)
1.Aggrieved by the rejection of their appeal by the Appellate Collector by Order-in-Appeal No. 1138/Calcutta/81 dated 11-8-1981, the appellants have filed a Revision Application before the Government of India which, on transfer to the Tribunal, is being treated as an appeal.
2. The appellants carry on the business of processing blended and compounded lubricating oil in their factory at Calcutta. The appellants have cleared lubricating oil during 10-10-1975, 21-10-1975 and 31-10-1975 after payment of duty under the Central Excise Tariff Item 11 -B. The appellants were not aware that no excise duty was leviable on the said blended or compounded lubricating oil which was processed out of duty paid blended or compounded lubricating oil. The appellants also rely on the trade notices issued by the Calcutta Collectorate dated 29-4-1974 and 29-4-1976. The appellants submitted their claim for refund of Rs. 7,953.59p. on 30-5-1977. The Assistant Collector of the Central Excise, Calcutta, by his order dated 29-12-1977, rejected their claim as barred by limitation under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules. The Appellate Collector confirmed the order.
3. In the course of
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.