2006 (7) TMI 554 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of provisions of Section 11B, applicability of CBEC Circular, limitation period under general law, strict adherence to Notification 33/99 for refund claims.

Interpretation of Section 11B: The Commissioner (Appeals) interpreted Section 11B dated 8-7-1999 as a procedural requirement for filing a statement of duty paid under Notification No. 33/99-CE. The order allowed the admissibility of refund based on merits of the case.

Applicability of CBEC Circular: The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on CBEC Circular F. No. 354/B/90-TRU-(part-II), dated 6-10-99 to conclude that Section 11AB is not applicable to claims under Notification No. 33/99-CE.

Limitation Period: The Revenue contended that in the absence of a specific limitation period in the statute, the general law i.e. Limitation Act, 1932 would apply, rendering the claim time-barred. The claim was filed nearly four years after the prescribed period.

Strict Adherence to Notification 33/99: The Notification 33/99 required claims of refunds for a particular month to be filed before the 7th of the subsequent month. The Tribunal emphasized strict compliance with this condition, noting that the applications were filed almost four years later.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and material on record, found that the Revenue's grounds did not align with CBEC instructions. It upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s balanced order, which correctly understood that no formal refund application under Section 11AB was necessary. Refunds were to be determined by the Assistant Commissioner based on monthly returns filed, as per the notification's requirements. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assistant Collector, having availed the benefit of the notification, could not deny the applicants their rightful claims. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds and rejected the appeal, confirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order.