1987 (3) TMI 385 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim time-barred under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Applicability of Central Excise Rule 11 and Section 11A in determining the limitation period for filing refund claims.
3. Proper procedure for claiming refund of excess duty paid.
4. Compliance with Trade Notice No. 152 (M.P)/General/17/1978 for refund claims.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The main issue in this case was whether the refund claim filed by the respondent was time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim as time-barred since it was filed after six months. However, the Appellate Collector allowed the refund claim, considering various factors such as the excess payment pointed out by the appellants and the timing of the refund claim.

Issue 2: The appellant argued that the refund claim was barred under Rule 11 and Section 11A, which revised the limitation period to six months from 6-8-1977. The appellant contended that since the respondent did not appeal against the assessment order denying credit for the excess amount, the refund claim filed after one year was time-barred. The Appellate Collector's decision to allow the refund claim was challenged on these grounds.

Issue 3: The Tribunal analyzed Rule 1731 of the Central Excise Rules, which outlines the procedure for assessing duty and adjusting payments. The rule does not require a separate refund application to be filed by the assessee. Trade Notice No. 152 (M.P)/General/17/1978 modified the procedure for claiming refunds in cases of over-payment due to late receipt of information. The notice authorized assessees to claim refunds by making suitable remarks in the RT 12 return and P.L.A., with the Superintendent endorsing the credit in the assessment return.

Issue 4: The Tribunal found that the respondent had followed the provisions of Trade Notice No. 152 and had made suitable remarks in the RT 12 return for claiming the refund. The Superintendent failed to fulfill his duty as required by Rule 1731 and the Trade Notice. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Appellate Collector's decision to allow the refund claim, stating that there was no justification for denying the refund due to the appellants based on the default of the Superintendent.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal, emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed procedures for claiming refunds and the responsibility of the authorities in processing such claims.