1986 (5) TMI 131 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding the time limit for refund claims.
2. Applicability of Rule 11 to the refund of Handloom Cess.
3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals related to the refund of Handloom Cess.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 11
The Collector of Central Excise, Baroda filed an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, regarding the refund of handloom cess. The Collector argued that the claim for refund should have been rejected as time-barred since it was filed after six months from the date of the Government of India's Notification. The Collector contended that the time limit should be counted from the date of payment of the handloom cess, not the date of the Notification. The Collector relied on Supreme Court decisions to support this interpretation. However, the Collector (Appeals) had split the period into two, which was contested by the Collector.

Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 11 to Handloom Cess
The learned SDR argued that Rule 11 was applicable to the refund of Handloom Cess claimed by the respondents. The Collector (Appeals) had held that Rule 11 was not applicable for the period before 6-8-1977 and that it was applicable from that date onwards. The Collector based this decision on the instructions from the Central Board of Excise & Customs. However, the SDR contended that the Supreme Court's decision in previous cases established that the time limit under the Excise Law would prevail over the general law of limitation. The SDR emphasized that the time limit should be computed from the date of payment of the handloom cess, not the date of the exemption Notification.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the Khadi and Other Handloom Industries Development Act, 1953, which classified the handloom cess as a duty of excise. The Tribunal noted that the levy and collection of this duty had to follow the same procedures as the basic duty of excise on cloth under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Therefore, Rule 11 and other machinery provisions applied to the refund of handloom cess. The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim of the respondents was time-barred under Rule 11, and the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, finding that the refund claim of the respondent was time-barred and could not be sanctioned.