1983 (10) TMI 257 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding refund claim.
2. Application of Rule 96YY of the Central Excise Rules to the case.
3. Validity of the order passed by the Collector (Appeals).
4. Entitlement to refund under Govt. of India Notification No. 71/78-C.E.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the refund claim of duty paid under compounded levy on battery parts. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim citing Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which sets limitations on refund claims. The Collector (Appeals) overturned this decision, stating that the claim was not time-barred under Rule 11, as the payments made were considered advances against future duty liabilities. The Collector (Appeals) also referenced previous decisions by the Govt. of India to support the refund claim.

2. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I, challenged the Collector (Appeals) order, arguing that the claim was time-barred as it was filed beyond the prescribed period of 6 months. Additionally, the Collector contended that the payments made were indeed duty and not advances, contrary to the Collector (Appeals) ruling. The Collector cited Rule 96YY of the Central Excise Rules as applicable to the case.

3. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found no merit in the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Collector (Appeals) had correctly applied the law in granting the refund claim. The Tribunal highlighted that the respondents had followed the special procedure under Rule 96YY for duty payment and were entitled to the exemption under Govt. of India Notification No. 71/78-C.E. The Tribunal emphasized that the application for exemption should be treated as an application for necessary relief, including refund, which was within the prescribed limitation period.

4. The Tribunal further explained that Rule 96YY imposed a statutory obligation on Central Excise Officers to recalculate duty and provide refunds in case of overpayment. The Tribunal clarified that Rule 96YY was a comprehensive provision in itself, eliminating the need for separate refund claims under Rule 11. The Tribunal concluded that the duty payments made by the manufacturer were provisional and subject to recalculation as per Rule 96YY, ensuring the refund of any excess amount paid.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Collector (Appeals) order granting the refund claim to the respondents based on the application of Rule 96YY and the exemption under Govt. of India Notification No. 71/78-C.E.