1985 (11) TMI 151 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 regarding refund claim for duty rebate.
2. Application of notification No. 198/76-CE for concession on batteries manufactured by the respondent.
3. Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Collector based on limitation under rule 11 of Central Excise Rules.
4. Appeal by the respondents allowed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) on the grounds of excess duty collection.
5. Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal against the Collector (Appeals) order.
6. Reference application by the applicant to the High Court on specific questions.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding a refund claim for duty rebate under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The respondent, a manufacturer of electric batteries, filed a refund claim for a concession on duty as per notification No. 198/76-CE. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector citing the limitation under rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, as it was received after six months from the duty payment date. However, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that excess duty collection not authorized by law should not be retained by the Department. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the Collector (Appeals) order, citing a previous decision related to the interpretation of Sec. 11B of the Act in a similar case.

The Tribunal, in its findings, highlighted that a declaration filed within the six-month period specified under Sec. 11B could be considered as a claim for refund of duty as per Notification No. 198/76. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision to support this interpretation and dismissed the present appeal based on that reasoning. The Tribunal addressed specific questions raised during the proceedings, including the relevance of the declaration date for the refund claim under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal agreed to refer a consolidated question to the High Court regarding the interpretation of the relevant date for the refund claim in the given circumstances.

In conclusion, the judgment revolved around the interpretation of statutory provisions for refund claims under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, specifically in relation to a concession notification for batteries. The decision emphasized the importance of timely filing of refund claims and the applicability of previous rulings in similar cases to determine the outcome of the appeal. The reference application to the High Court sought clarity on the relevant date for the refund claim process, adding another layer of complexity to the legal dispute.