9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 vs. Section 11B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for refund claims. 2. Classification and exemption of articles made from polyurethane foam scrap. 3. Limitation period for filing refund claims. Summary: 1. Applicability of Rule 11 vs. Section 11B: The primary issue was whether Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as it existed before the introduction of Section 11B in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, would apply, or the provisions of Section 11B would apply, or neither would apply. The Court concluded that Section 11B, which came into force on 17-11-1980, was not applicable to the present case as the refund application was made on 26-10-1978, when Rule 11 was in existence. The Court stated that the only relevant question was whether the time limit specified under old Rule 11 was applicable in the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case. 2. Classification and Exemption of Articles: The assessee, U-Foam Private Limited, claimed exemption from central excise duty for articles manufactured from scrap of polyurethane foam under Notification No. 69 of 71 and Notification No. 108/73. The Assistant Collector initially classified these articles under Tariff Item 15A(3) and rejected the claim for exemption. However, the Government of India, in its revision order dated 14-12-1977, upheld the assessee's claim, stating that articles manufactured from scrap of polyurethane foam fell under Tariff Item 15A(4) and were exempt from duty. 3. Limitation Period for Filing Refund Claims: The Court examined whether the time limit specified in Rule 11 applied to the assessee's refund claim. It was held that Rule 11's six-month limitation period did not apply to cases where duty was illegally and unauthorisedly collected without the sanction of law. The Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including D.Cawasi and Co. v. State of Mysore and Salonah Tea Company Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes, which established that the period of limitation for recovering money paid under a mistake of law is three years from the date the mistake is discovered. The Court concluded that the assessee's application for refund filed on 26-10-1978 was within the period of limitation under general law, as the mistake was discovered only after the Government of India's revision order dated 14-12-1977. Conclusion: The Court re-framed the question to address the real controversy and concluded that the assessee's application for refund dated 26-10-1978 was within the period of limitation and that the assessee was entitled to the refund of duty paid during the period 21-8-1971 to 2-5-1978. The reference was answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
|
