1985 (12) TMI 262 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of claim for refund of duty based on exemption Notification No. 178-C.E.
- Confirmation of rejection by Assistant Collector and Collector of Central Excise (Appeals)
- Filing of appeals by respondents to the Tribunal
- Tribunal's consideration of provisional assessment and time-bar
- Clarification by Tribunal regarding payment of refund

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three reference applications filed under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, where the applicants sought to refer identical questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. The respondent companies, engaged in manufacturing tires and rubber products, had their claim for refund of duty based on exemption Notification No. 178-C.E. rejected by the Assistant Collector and subsequently confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) citing reasons of limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules and non-compliance with conditions of the notification. The respondents then filed appeals to the Tribunal challenging these orders.

The respondents contended that the assessments of goods for which refund was claimed were accepted as provisional by the Department under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules pending determination of assessable value. They relied on a previous order of the Tribunal supporting their claim, which was accepted by the Department. The Tribunal, in its order dated 24-5-1985, noted that the appellants were relying on a prior judgment of the Tribunal regarding provisional assessment and time-bar. The Tribunal allowed all three appeals based on the rationale of the earlier judgment.

Subsequently, in its order dated 1-11-1985, the Tribunal clarified that its decision to allow the appeals was based solely on the question of time-bar and that the consideration of the merits of the refund claim on other points would not be affected by their order. Following this clarification, the applicants withdrew the question relating to the merits of the refund claim. The Tribunal then identified a legal question regarding the lawfulness of holding an assessment as a whole as provisional when a provisional assessment is made under Rule 9B, which it referred to the High Court of Judicature at Madras for consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the rejection of refund claims, the acceptance of provisional assessments, the distinction between time-bar and other grounds for refund, and the legal question surrounding the provisionality of assessments under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules. The clarification provided by the Tribunal ensured that the decision to allow the appeals was limited to the issue of time-bar, emphasizing that the merits of the refund claim on other points were not affected by their order.