TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder must be adhered to. The authorities functioning under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act" - This decision was confirmed in Apex Court in Porcelain Electrical Mfg. Co's case [1994 (11) TMI 145 - SUPREME COURT] The application for refund of duty paid for the period in question was lodged on 4.6.1973 which was clearly beyond the period of three months from the date of payment of the said duty as required under Rule 11 of the 1944 Rules. The petitioner was, therefore, not entitled to any refund in terms of Rule 11 of the 1944 Rules. - Decided against the assessee. - CWP No. 19673 of 1996 - - - Dated:- 3-9-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the party carefully and find that an amount of ₹ 2189.35 sanctioned by the then Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Patiala is admissible to the party out of the Ist claim for ₹ 41,161.23 (Rs.9,938.61 already paid) and out of the refund claim, an amount of ₹ 29,033.27 is not admissible being time barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as the claim pertained to the period 22.7.72 to 7.6.72 and was received on 4.6.73. Accordingly, ₹ 1905.43 were also not admissible out of 3rd claim for ₹ 36,109.50 as this part of duty was paid on flats which is not admissible under Notification No. 206/63 (Rs.34,204.07 already paid). The refund for 2nd claim has already been paid in full. 4. Feeling dissati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the claims were time barred. Further, it would be wrong to state that the appellant's case is not covered under Rule 11. It is clearly a case covered under 'misconstruction'. It would not be correct to hold that inadvertence error or misconstruction related to clerical or arithmatical error only. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby rejected. 5. Further, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order, Annexure P-3, which was dismissed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4). Hence, the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in Shalimar Textile Mfg. Pvt. Limited v. Union of India and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for refund under his signatures with the concerned officer within three months from the date of such payment. 10. Rule 173J of the 1944 Rules at the relevant time prescribed time limit for recovery of short levy or refund of excess levy wherein it had been stipulated that the provisions of Rules 10 and 11 shall apply to the assessee and for the expression 'three months' in these rules, the expression 'one year' shall stand substituted. Thus, a claim for refund under Rule 173J of the 1944 Rules was required to be made within the statutory period of one year provided thereunder. 11. Dealing with Rule 11 and Rule 173J of the 1944 Rules, the Apex Court in Porcelain Electrical Mfg. Co's case (supra), has held that wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nctioning under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act. 5. Since the appellant had filed an application under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J and sought its remedy under the statute, it was bound by the limitation provided under the Act and the Rules. It was not open to the appellant to claim that even though the period of limitation was provided under the statute for refund, the application filed by it should be processed and considered under the general law of limitation. 12. The application for refund of duty paid for the period in question was lodged on 4.6.1973 which was clearly beyond the period of three months from the date of payment of the said duty as required under Rule 11 of the 1944 Rules. The petitioner was, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
