2001 (9) TMI 543 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection as time-barred.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns a refund claim rejected as time-barred by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. The appellant sought a refund of duty paid on deteriorated molasses stored in kutcha pits, which was declared unfit for consumption by the Chief Chemist. The Asstt. Collector rejected the claim as time-barred and due to the molasses being stored at the appellant's risk. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating the Asstt. Collector is bound by the Central Excise Statute's limitation. The High Court directed the appeal to be filed before CEGAT. The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of the Trade Notice permitting duty payment for storing molasses in kutcha pits, contrary to Central Excise Rules. The appellant argued that duty should have been collected upon removal from the pits, not at storage. The Revenue contended that authorities must adhere to statutory limitations and that the Trade Notice complies with relevant rules.

The Asst. Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) both held the refund claim time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as filed beyond the 6-month statutory period. They emphasized that the duty had been paid for storing molasses in kutcha pits, making the refund claim inadmissible. The Asst. Commissioner rejected the argument that the General Law of Limitation should apply. The Revenue argued that the Trade Notice aligned with Central Excise Rules and challenged the need to question its validity. The Asst. Commissioner noted that the molasses were stored at the appellant's risk, and any delay in filing the claim was not the Department's fault. The Tribunal's decision cited by the appellant regarding remission of duty on molasses was distinguished from the current case.

The Tribunal, following precedents, affirmed that authorities are bound by statutory limitations, as established in previous Supreme Court cases. The Tribunal emphasized that claims filed beyond the statutory period must be pursued through civil suits or writ petitions, not before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim was time-barred, and the appeal lacked substance. The impugned order dismissing the appeal was upheld, finding no infirmity in the decision.