1988 (12) TMI 246 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Refund of Central Excise duty paid under protest.
2. Applicability of time-limit for refund under Central Excise Rules.
3. Interpretation of excise duty and excess amount collected.
4. Validity of the order of the Assistant Collector and Tribunal's decision.
5. Reference application for points of law and High Court referral.

Issue 1: Refund of Central Excise duty paid under protest

The case involved M/s. Worthington Pump India Limited claiming a refund of Central Excise duty paid on C.I. Castings. The duty was paid under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, and the applicants contended that the duty was paid under protest from the beginning. However, the Assistant Collector and subsequently the Tribunal found that there was no evidence of a protest against the duty payment before a specific date. The Tribunal upheld the Assistant Collector's decision, stating that there was no material to show the duty was paid provisionally.

Issue 2: Applicability of time-limit for refund under Central Excise Rules

The applicants argued that the time-limit prescribed under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 should not apply to the refund claim as the excess amount collected was not legitimate excise duty. They contended that the time-limit of three years under the Limitation Act from the date of discovering the mistake should be applicable. However, the Tribunal referred to previous judgments, including one by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing that the time-limit for refund under the Central Excise Rules was applicable in this case.

Issue 3: Interpretation of excise duty and excess amount collected

The main contention raised was whether the excess amount collected, which was claimed as not legitimate excise duty, should be subject to the time-limit prescribed under the Central Excise Rules. The applicants argued that since the duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff was not actually payable by them, the time-limit should not apply. However, the Tribunal and the Supreme Court judgments cited emphasized that the time-limit prescribed in the Central Excise Act and Rules must be adhered to for refund claims before the Departmental authority.

Issue 4: Validity of the order of the Assistant Collector and Tribunal's decision

The Tribunal, in its order dated 23-5-1988, upheld the Assistant Collector's decision regarding the refund claim. It concluded that the duty was paid under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, and the time-limit of six months under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules was applicable. The Tribunal referenced Supreme Court judgments to support the decision that the time-limit for refund as per the Central Excise Rules must be followed.

Issue 5: Reference application for points of law and High Court referral

The applicants filed a reference application against the Tribunal's order, requesting that certain points be referred to the High Court under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal noted that the points raised in the reference application were not properly formulated and resembled grounds of appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the reference application, citing the settled law by the Supreme Court that the time-limit prescribed in the Central Excise Act and Rules must be adhered to for refund claims.

Overall, the Tribunal dismissed the reference application by M/s. Worthington Pump India Ltd., emphasizing that the law regarding the time-limit for refund claims under the Central Excise Act and Rules was settled, and there was no justification for a High Court referral in this case.

← Previous Next →