9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und application to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 17-9-1979. Refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector as time-barred under Rule 11(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as it was not received in his office within a period of six months from the date of payment of duty. Appeal filed before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi was rejected in the impugned order. Hence, this appeal before us. 2. Shri Garg, appearing for the appellants, has argued that in view of Kanpur Collectorate Trade Notice No. 206/80 practice of receiving refund claims by the Range Superintendent in Kanpur Collectorate during 1977 is to be presumed. The refund application dated 23-12-1977 was filed by the appellants before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hir Kumar has drawn our attention to Page 341 of the E.L.T. in which the Tribunal has observed that filing of the refund claims to the Jurisdictional Sector Officer or the Range Officer on their own cannot be said to be an established practice. He has stated that the claim was rightly rejected by the lower authorities and their orders should be upheld. 4. We have considered the case records and the arguments of the learned Advocate and the learned SDR. The facts of the present appellants' own case reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 337 were that on 27-12-1977 the Respondents therein M/s. Prag Vanaspati Products, Aligarh filed an application claiming refund of Central Excise duty paid by them during the period from 24-8-1977 to 27-11-1977. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectorate, this Tribunal held that time-limit prescribed in new Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules should be observed in the absence of any practice during the relevant time for receiving the refund claims by the Range Superintendent. It was decided by this Tribunal that provision of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules was mandatory and since the claim was not received by the Assistant Collector within the period of six months as stipulated in Rule 11, the Assistant Collector was justified in rejecting the claim as time-barred. 5. The learned Advocate, in the present case, has drawn our attention to the facts that on receipt of the refund application, the Superintendent did not pass on the same to the Assistant Collector of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
