1985 (6) TMI 196 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for refund of duty paid on aluminium extruded shapes and sections under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Collector on grounds of limitation under Section 11B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Appeal before Appellate Collector and subsequent transfer of revision application to Tribunal.
4. Interpretation of Rule 173L and Section 11B regarding the time limit for filing refund applications.

Analysis:
The appellant factory sought a refund of duty paid on aluminium extruded shapes and sections received for reprocessing under Rule 173L. Despite intimation and requests for extensions due to operational issues, the formal refund claim was filed six months after returning the rejected material, leading to rejection by the Assistant Collector citing limitation under Section 11B. The Appellate Collector upheld the rejection, emphasizing Rule 173L(3) requiring an account to be rendered within six months of goods return for refund. The matter was transferred to the Tribunal for revision.

The appellant argued that Rule 173L mandates refund when conditions are met, making Section 11B irrelevant for goods returned for reprocessing, as per Section 11B(4). Conversely, the SDR cited Section 11B(1) requiring refund applications within six months of the relevant date, clarified for returned goods' entry into the factory. The SDR contended that the specific reference in Section 11B applies to goods returned for reprocessing, not covered by Section 11B(4). The appellant suggested treating a communication as a refund claim, which the SDR rebutted, stating it lacked explicit refund application intent.

The Tribunal analyzed both arguments, noting the Appellate Collector's focus on Rule 173L and the Assistant Collector's rejection under Section 11B. It concurred with the SDR that Section 11B(4) does not exempt goods returned for reprocessing, as evidenced by the definition of the 'relevant date.' The Tribunal found the communication inadequate as a refund claim due to its conditional nature and incorrect addressee, Superintendent instead of Assistant Collector. Consequently, the appeal for refund was dismissed, affirming the rejection based on the time limit under Section 11B and Rule 173L provisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision underscored the importance of complying with the statutory time limits for filing refund claims under Section 11B, even in situations involving goods returned for reprocessing as per Rule 173L. The judgment clarified the interplay between the specific provisions of Rule 173L and Section 11B, emphasizing the need for timely and proper refund claim submissions to the designated authority for consideration and processing.