1980 (4) TMI 127 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Refund claim for back period not admissible merely because classification claimed by petitioner was accepted

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 146/67 regarding duty concessions for 'Harmatic Motors'.
2. Authority of lower authorities to review refund claims after Government's order.
3. Applicability of time limits under General Limitation Law versus Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a dispute regarding the eligibility of 'Harmatic Motors' for duty concessions under Notification No. 146/67, which provided proforma credit for duty paid on stators and rotors. The Government accepted the petitioners' contention that 'Harmatic Motors' are equivalent to stators and rotors, allowing the benefit. However, the Assistant Collector initially denied the concession, later granting it partially. The Appellate Collector modified the decision, granting proforma credit from the date of application, not formal permission.

2. The petitioners argued that the Government's order accepting 'Harmatic Motors' as stators and rotors precluded further review by lower authorities. They contended that the time limit for refund claims should follow the General Limitation Law, not Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. However, the Government clarified that its acceptance did not automatically authorize refunds without assessing admissibility and merit. The Appellate Collector rightly applied Rule 11, rejecting claims not within the time limit.

3. The Government emphasized that the petitioners failed to follow proper procedures and time limits for refund claims, leading to rejections by the Assistant Collector and Appellate Collector. The Government rejected the argument that General Limitation Law applied, asserting that errors in claiming benefits under notifications necessitated adherence to Rule 11 time limits. Granting belated benefits would unjustly enrich the petitioners, who likely passed on duty burdens to consumers. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, upholding the lower authorities' decisions.