2000 (7) TMI 91 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the application for refund which was filed by the respondent before the Excise Authority was within the prescribed period of limitation? Held that - The Collector of Excise as well as the CEGAT erred in coming to the conclusion that the period of limitation would commence from the end of the financial year. The period of limitation, as already noticed by us, would commence under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J from the date of payment and/or from the date of adjustment in case where there is a current account maintained under Rule 9. The Appeal is accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the application for refund filed by the respondent before the Excise Authority was within the prescribed period of limitation.

Analysis:
The respondent, a manufacturer of Sodium Hydrosulphite, filed an application for refund of excise duty paid on 150 metric tonnes of the product. The application was based on a notification exempting duty up to 150 metric tonnes. The Assistant Collector rejected the application, stating it was time-barred as the duty was not paid under protest. The Collector of Customs allowed the appeal, noting the refund claim could be filed within six months from the close of the financial year. The appellant appealed to CEGAT, which upheld the decision. The appellant argued that the period of limitation should be determined by Rule 11 and Rule 173J, which set a time limit for refund applications.

The relevant rules state that an application for refund should be lodged within three months from the date of payment or adjustment if due to inadvertence, error, or misconstruction. However, Rule 173J extends this period to one year in cases of short levy or excess levy. The crucial question was when the period of limitation began in this case. The respondent claimed that the limitation should start at the end of the financial year when production figures were known. However, the rules clearly specify that the limitation commences from the date of payment or adjustment, not the end of the financial year. The respondent had ample time to file the refund application within the prescribed period but failed to do so.

The court noted various decisions by High Courts and a Full Bench of the Tribunal supporting the view that the period of limitation should be determined based on Rule 11 and Rule 173J, irrespective of specific notifications. The court disagreed with a contrary view taken by a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the rules' language. The judgment concluded that the Excise Collector and CEGAT erred in considering the end of the financial year as the starting point for limitation. The period of limitation should begin from the date of payment or adjustment, as per Rule 11 and Rule 173J. The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.

Additionally, another appeal (C.A. No. 1347/91) was dismissed as it had become infructuous, meaning it was no longer relevant or effective.