1986 (7) TMI 246 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of the order granting refund in terms of relief in excise duty as an incentive to higher production.
2. Time limitation for filing refund claims under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The question for decision in the appeals was the correctness of the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, granting the respondents' applications for refund in terms of relief in excise duty as an incentive to higher production under Notification 198/76. The respondents claimed the refund based on exceeding base clearances and entitlement under the notification.

Issue 2:
The respondents filed refund claims for excess clearance of fertilizer during specific periods, which were rejected by the Assistant Collector as time-barred under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules. The Appellate Collector accepted the claims, stating that the crucial date for counting the time limit under Rule 11 would be the date from which the entitlement to exemption arises. The respondents argued that the limitation should be computed from the date of issue of orders by the Coordinating Assistant Collector determining the base year and clearances.

The appellant relied on a decision of a Special Bench in Collector of Central Excise v. Steel Authority of India regarding the applicability of Rule 11. The respondent cited various decisions to support their position. The Tribunal considered these arguments and previous judgments to determine the time limitation for the refund claims.

The Tribunal held that the claim for refund made between 10-2-1977 to 31-3-1977 was within time, as the respondents had staked their claim by filing a declaration before the amendment of Rule 11. However, the claim for the period after the amendment of Rule 11 was considered time-barred. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed part of the claim and allowed the rest, based on the timing of the refund claims and relevant legal provisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders to the extent they related to the respondents' claim for the specific period and set aside the rest of the claim. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.