2002 (7) TMI 445 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant company is barred by limitation or not.

Analysis:
The appellant company filed a refund claim of Rs. 59,943.90, contending that the Department of Telecommunication had not reimbursed the Central Excise Duty during a specific period. The claim was initially made through a letter dated 23-1-96 to the Range Officer and Assistant Commissioner, followed by another letter on 19-3-96 requesting re-credit in their Modvat Account. Subsequently, a formal refund claim was filed on 21-6-96. The Assistant Commissioner considered the first letter as the relevant date for the refund claim and allowed the credit. However, the Revenue challenged this decision, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the amendment to Section 11B, which required refund claims to be submitted in a prescribed form. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in the NISCO case, dated 24-11-89, the Commissioner held that the claim filed after six months in the prescribed form was time-barred. The Revenue's appeal was allowed based on this reasoning.

The appellant's advocate argued that the Supreme Court's decision should prevail despite the amendment to Section 11B, as the claim was lodged with the authorities within six months, even if not in the prescribed proforma. The Tribunal concurred with this argument, emphasizing that the amendment did not alter the legal principle established by the Supreme Court in the NISCO case. The Tribunal held that the date of lodging the claim with the Range Superintendent, along with the Assistant Commissioner, should be considered as the starting point for calculating the limitation period. As the claim was lodged within six months, it was not time-barred. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant company, granting consequential reliefs.