1986 (3) TMI 198 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim presented to the Superintendent of Central Excise instead of Assistant Collector of Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of statutory time limit for claiming refund under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Application of Rule 173-L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in refund claims.
3. Authority of Central Government to relax provisions in refund claims.
4. Determination of the date of submission of a refund claim.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the statutory time limit for claiming a refund under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The case involved a refund claim received by the Assistant Collector after the expiration of the six-month period prescribed under Section 11B. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim citing the expiration of the statutory time limit. However, the respondents argued that the claim was initially lodged with the Range Superintendent and should be considered as submitted within the time limit. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) agreed with the respondents' argument, emphasizing that the claim should be deemed submitted when handed over to the Superintendent. The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural compliance and the authority of the Central Government to relax provisions in refund claims.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and cited a previous decision to support the view that the claim, even if addressed to the Assistant Collector but presented to the Superintendent, should be considered as meeting the submission requirement. The judgment emphasized that the act of addressing the application to the Assistant Collector and presenting it to the Superintendent should be deemed equivalent to submitting it directly to the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal upheld the previous decision's rationale and dismissed the appeal, directing the Assistant Collector to reconsider the matter in line with the Tribunal's decision and the previous practice followed in the Collectorate.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the interpretation of the statutory time limit for refund claims, the application of Rule 173-L, and the authority of the Central Government to relax provisions. It underscored the significance of procedural compliance and upheld the view that submitting a claim to the Superintendent, even if addressed to the Assistant Collector, should be considered valid. The decision provided guidance for future cases involving similar issues and emphasized adherence to established practices within the Collectorate.