1985 (1) TMI 317 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellants was time-barred.
2. Whether the rejection of the refund claim without a show cause notice violated the principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim by the Assistant Collector on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellants argued that the refund claim, though received by the Assistant Collector after the stipulated time, had been accepted by the Jurisdictional Superintendent, who forwarded it to the Assistant Collector's office. They contended that a Trade Notice supported the practice of submitting refund claims through the Superintendent. The Tribunal noted that the law required the application for refund to be made to the Assistant Collector. The Trade Notice indicated a past practice of accepting refund claims by Superintendents, and the Superintendent had forwarded the appellants' claim to the Assistant Collector, suggesting an established practice. The Tribunal concluded that the application addressed to the Assistant Collector and presented to the Superintendent met the requirement, considering the practice allowed at the time.

2. The appellants also argued that the rejection of their refund claim without a show cause notice denied them natural justice. The Tribunal agreed that the rejection without a show cause notice could have deprived the appellants of the opportunity to explain the situation based on the existing practice. They criticized a previous judgment for not considering such practices and opined that procedural matters like where to present the application could be governed by established practices. The Tribunal found that the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred was incorrect based on the facts and materials presented. They allowed the appeal, directing the refund to be given to the appellants if it was actually due, as a consequential relief of allowing the appeal.