1983 (3) TMI 290 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order directing recovery of refund granted under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Interpretation of the relevant dates for review proceedings.
4. Application of exemption under Notification No. 71/78.
5. Observations of the Supreme Court regarding refund and government conduct.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT New Delhi challenged the order of the Collector of Central Excise directing the recovery of a refund granted under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras VII Division, had issued a cheque for a certain amount in favor of the appellants. However, the Collector of Central Excise reviewed this decision and ordered the recovery of the refund, citing limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as the reason.

The representative of the appellants argued that the order of the Assistant Collector dated 16-10-1980, finding the appellants eligible for exemption under Notification No. 71/78, was the relevant date for considering the limitation period for review proceedings. On the other hand, the Senior Departmental Representative contended that the order of 16-10-1980 did not pertain to the period in question, and the refund application was filed later. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Collector's order did not specifically address duties payable or paid after 1-4-1978, and hence, the review proceedings were not time-barred.

Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the observations of the Supreme Court regarding the duty and grace of the government in handling refunds. The Tribunal emphasized that if the amount collected is not refundable due to limitations prescribed by the Act, the Tribunal cannot overlook the statutory provisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Collector's order for recovery of the refund.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Collector of Central Excise, holding that the review proceedings were not barred by limitation, and the appellants were not entitled to retain the refunded amount. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and limitations in matters of refunds under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.