TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the Assistant Collector s office on 13-8-1979 as time barred under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants manufacture paper and paper board of different types falling under old Central Excise Tariff Item 17. They applied for refund of duty in terms of Notification 198/76 which is in the nature of an incentive for higher production, which grants duty relief to the extent of 25% of duty payable on excess production, over a base clearance to be fixed by jurisdictional Assistant Collector. On their applying for it, the Assistant Collector fixed the base clearance, by his order dated 6-2-1978. Pending this the appellants paid duty at the effective rate. After the Assistant Collector fixed the base clearance the appellants fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 281 that such claims should be held to have been filed in time. Further, during the period Jan., 1978 to Feb., 1980, it was submitted, the appellants had made 18 refund claims in similar fashion to the Assistant Collector through the Range Office which will show that there had been a practice of delivering the refund claims in the Superintendent s office. 3. The Ld. Counsel also urged that in respect of refund claims arising out of excess production incentive exemption Notification 198/76 the Tribunal in the case of Super Tyres v. C.C.E. in its order No. 592/84-D dated 22-10-84 had held that in the case of grant of refund so far as time bar is concerned limitation should be counted backwards from the date of receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, namely, whether the claim for refund under Rule 11 Central Excise Rules should be made and sent to the Assistant Collector direct or whether such an application addressed to the Assistant Collector can be submitted to the jurisdictional Superintendent and whether the date of receipt of the application by the Supdt. should be taken as the date of receipt of the application by the proper authority, had come up before the Hon ble Kerala High Court on a reference by the South Regional Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Talayar Tea Co. v. C.C.E., Cochin - 1990 (30) ECR 518 (Kerala). The Hon ble High Court while answering the reference observed as follows : The only question that arises for consideration is whether in the instant case th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by time. We find that the Superintendent who had received to rectify various defects pointed out by him in their refund claim and that this correspondence went on till 1980 and it is thereafter that the refund claim was sent to the Assistant Collector on 29-1-1980. This course of conduct of the Superintendent would itself establish that there was a practice that the refund claim though addressed to the Assistant Collector was required to be presented to the Superintendent who was to scrutinise the claims and thereafter submit the same to the Assistant Collector evidently with his remarks etc. We therefore hold that the claim must be held to have been presented to the Assistant Collector on 4-1-1978 when it was handed over to the Superinte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
