2003 (10) TMI 190 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Whether the refund claims filed by M/s. Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers Ltd. are time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Summary:
In the appeals, the issue revolved around the time-limit for refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The appellants, manufacturers of L.P.G. cylinders, had filed refund claims for the period from July 1999 to March 2000 due to price revisions by their customers. The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claims as time-barred since they were filed in February and March 2001 for clearances during the mentioned period. The appellants argued that their assessments should be deemed provisional despite not following Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, as they indicated duty payment on a provisional basis in their returns and the supply contracts contained provisional price clauses.

The Departmental Representative contended that assessments can only be provisional if Rule 9B conditions are met, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Metal Forgings case. The absence of an order under Rule 9B and evidence of goods being cleared provisionally meant the assessments were not provisional. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision in A. Infracture Ltd. case, emphasizing the need for provisional assessment in cases of uncertain value due to contract clauses.

The Tribunal considered both arguments and noted that duty was paid from July 1999 to March 2000, with refund claims filed in 2001, exceeding the Section 11B time limit. The appellants did not request provisional assessment as required by Rule 9B, which mandates a written request to the proper officer with reasons for provisional assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that mere mention of provisional assessment in returns does not suffice without complying with Rule 9B. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for lack of merit.

End of Summary