1986 (6) TMI 172 - AT - Central Excise

Reference to the High Court - Questions not arising out of Tribunal s Order not referable

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of limitation period under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for filing a refund claim.
- Calculation of time limit for refund claim under Rule 11 based on the date of receipt of the claim by the jurisdictional superintendent.
- Reliance on previous tribunal orders for determining limitation period under Rule 11.
- Validity of filing a refund application before the superintendent instead of the Assistant Collector.

Interpretation of Limitation Period under Rule 11:
The appellant sought clarification on whether the Tribunal correctly held that the limitation period of six months for filing a refund claim under Rule 11 starts from the date of receipt of the claim by the jurisdictional superintendent instead of the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal observed that the claim was entertained by the superintendent, who forwarded it to the Assistant Collector, the sanctioning authority. Relying on a previous order, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant that the claim for a specific period was within time, leading to the rejection of the claim for the remaining period as time-barred under Rule 11.

Calculation of Time Limit for Refund Claim:
The Tribunal deliberated on whether the refund claim for a specific period was within the time limit as per Rule 11. The appellant argued that the claim was lodged with the jurisdictional superintendent within the stipulated time, and reliance was placed on a previous tribunal order for support. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention, emphasizing that the claim was forwarded to the Assistant Collector, the sanctioning authority, within the prescribed time, resulting in the acceptance of the claim for the mentioned period.

Reliance on Previous Tribunal Orders:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of reliance on a previous tribunal order for determining the limitation period under Rule 11. It was noted that while the Tribunal had previously held that the limitation should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the claim by the jurisdictional superintendent, a Reference Application challenging this decision was rejected as it did not lay down any general principles. The Tribunal emphasized that the current case was decided based on specific facts and not general principles, dismissing the argument that a question of law arose out of the order in question.

Validity of Filing Refund Application before Superintendent:
The Tribunal examined whether filing a refund application before the superintendent instead of the Assistant Collector was legally permissible under Rule 11. The appellant argued that since the claim was entertained by the superintendent and forwarded to the Assistant Collector, it should be considered within time. The Tribunal upheld this argument, highlighting that the superintendent's role in forwarding the claim to the Assistant Collector was crucial in determining the timeliness of the claim. The Tribunal ultimately rejected the application, emphasizing that the questions raised did not arise from the order and were decided based on the specific circumstances of the case.