1985 (3) TMI 286 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of claim for refund of duty as barred by limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Interpretation of Rule 173G(2) proviso (vii) regarding the timeline for sending intimation to the proper officer for gate pass cancellation.
3. Compliance with assessment and removal procedures in the context of duty refund claims.
4. Importance of timely intimation to the Department for verification of goods status and earlier removal purposes.
5. Bar on refund claims due to non-compliance with time limits under Section 11-B of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim for duty refund on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 11-B of the Act, as the gate passes were canceled, but the intimation to the proper officer was not sent within the prescribed timeline.
2. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the refund claim, citing Rule 173G(2) proviso (vii) which requires intimation to be sent the day following gate pass cancellation. However, the Department argued that the intimation in this case was not sent within the specified timeframe, leading to non-compliance.
3. The appellants referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that assessment precedes levy, highlighting the absence of assessment in this case due to non-removal of goods, which were not included in the relevant documentation.
4. The Department stressed the importance of timely intimation for verification purposes, indicating that such safeguards should not be disregarded lightly, especially in cases where goods might have been previously removed.
5. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, considering the absence of Rule 173-G provisions and the delay in submitting the claim after the prescribed time limit under Section 11-A, leading to the claim being time-barred under Section 11-B of the Act.