TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Order, the prices were only tentative and were to be finalised subsequently. The appellant company filed a price-list on 26.5.1993 and mentioned as under:-- The price mentioned in price list is provisional. However, on the settlement of the contract, we would file a price list based on final price. We reserve our right to claim refund in case of reduction in final price and we undertake to pay the differential duty in case of any increase in final price. Thereafter, the appellant company started clearance of goods by paying duties on the price declared by them in the aforesaid price-list. Prices were subsequently finalised by BSP in their Acceptance of Tender dated 18.9.1993. On the basis of finalisation of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.1995 treating the same to be barred by the provisions of Section 11B. The appeal against the above Order of the Assistant Commissioner also failed before the first Appellate Authority. The claim was rejected by the authorities below on the ground that the same has been filed after a period of six months from the date of payment of duty, which is the relevant date under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that since the statutory provisions regarding the relevant date as per the Explanation 'B' of Section 11B in the case of provisional assessment had since been deleted vide Notification No. 30/91-CE(NT) : dated 19.9.1991, the limitation of six months would apply from the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 11B, there was no relevant date for considering the refund of duty in the cases of provisional assessments. The only relevant date being the date from payment of duty, the refund claim had to be made within six months from that date, irrespective of fact whether the assessments were provisional or not. Accordingly, he submitted that the refund claim has been rightly rejected by the authorities below and the appeal of the appellant company herein is liable to be dismissed on this ground. I have considered the submissions made from both sides and perused the records carefully. There is no dispute as regards the provisional nature of the assessment which was finalised by the Department only on 29.7.1994. In fact, the refund claim in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich arises for consideration in the said case as to whether the provisions of Rule 9B(5) would be applicable in the cases of provisional assessments independent of the provisions of Section 11B or the refund claim would be liable to the rejected on the ground that Section 11B which deals with the refund claims and which does not provide any date for reckoning limitation in cases of provisional assessments. It is a well-settled principle of law that the provisions of a particular Act has to be interpreted harmoniously and one provision should not be interpreted in such a way so as to render the other provisions otiose or redundant. Rejection of the refund claim under the provisions of section 11B without adverting to the provisions of Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dant or surplus. I also find that the Tribunal's judgment in the case of M/s. Khaitan Electricals Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate, Shri Bagaria, dealt with a similar situation and it had been held in that case that the provisions of Rule 9B(5) would be applicable in the cases of provisional assessments. Following the said judgment and in view of my discussions above, I hold that the assessments in the instant case being admittedly provisional, were covered by the provisions of Rule 9B(5) and on finalisation of the same, the Department was bound to give effect to the same and if any excess payment was paid by the appellant company, the same was liable to be refunded to the appellants without their having made any claim t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
