1983 (12) TMI 282 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Claim for refund of excess duty paid.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 198/76-C.E. dated 16-6-1976.
3. Application of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
4. Limitation period for claiming a refund.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Claim for Refund of Excess Duty Paid:
The appellants sought a refund of duty paid in excess under Notification No. 198/76-C.E., which provided partial exemption from duty on excess production of tea. Their claim was rejected on the ground of limitation, as it was filed more than six months after the payment of duty.

2. Interpretation of Notification No. 198/76-C.E. dated 16-6-1976:
The appellants argued that the notification specified that the exemption was in respect of clearances "from one or more factories in excess of the base clearances by or on behalf of a manufacturer," thus allowing combined clearances from multiple factories. The Tribunal noted that the appellants' interpretation appeared correct but did not need to be further examined since the claim was barred by limitation.

3. Application of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The appellants contended that the time limit for claiming a refund should start from the end of the financial year, not from the date of payment of duty. They argued that the right to claim a refund accrued only at the end of the financial year. However, the Tribunal pointed out that Rule 11 specifically stated that the time limit starts from the date of payment of duty. The Tribunal also noted that the practice was for assessees to avail themselves of the exemption as soon as their clearances exceeded the base period clearances.

4. Limitation Period for Claiming a Refund:
The Tribunal examined the judgments cited by both parties. The appellants relied on decisions from the Kerala and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, which dealt with small-scale manufacturers and held that the time limit started from the end of the financial year. However, the Tribunal found these cases distinguishable as they involved different notification conditions. The Tribunal emphasized that Notification No. 198/76 did not indicate that the right to exemption accrued only at the end of the financial year and that the specific provisions of Rule 11 applied.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' claim was time-barred as it was filed more than six months after the payment of duty. The orders of the lower authorities were upheld, and the appeal was rejected.