1994 (4) TMI 82 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Procedure for seeking a refund of excise duty.
3. Consideration of refund applications not in prescribed form.
4. Dependency of refund on the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT).

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves an interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which governs the refund of excise duty. The court emphasized that any order for refund must comply with the provisions of Section 11B(2) and necessitates the submission of an application in the prescribed form for consideration.

2. The court highlighted the importance of following the prescribed procedure for seeking a refund of excise duty. It noted that the party seeking a refund must submit an application in the prescribed form, as per Section 11B(2) of the Act. The court clarified that procedural rules should not impede a party's substantive right to seek a refund.

3. The judgment addressed situations where refund applications are not considered due to non-compliance with the prescribed form. The court ruled that the department should inform the concerned party to resubmit the application in the correct form instead of outright rejecting it. This approach ensures that procedural requirements do not obstruct the right to seek a refund.

4. The court discussed the dependency of the refund on the decision of the CEGAT in an appeal. It directed the CEGAT to decide on the appeal promptly and instructed that the refund application, if necessary based on the appeal outcome, should be considered within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the judgment outlined the entitlement to interest on the refundable amount if the appeal or refund application is not resolved within the stipulated period.

Overall, the judgment provided clarity on the procedural requirements for seeking a refund of excise duty, highlighted the significance of complying with Section 11B provisions, and addressed the interplay between refund entitlement and appellate decisions.