1986 (9) TMI 248 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the refund claim under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Practice of submitting refund claims to the Superintendent of Central Excise.
3. Interpretation of Rule 11 and its mandatory nature.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Timeliness of the refund claim under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The respondents filed an application on 27-12-1977 seeking a refund of Central Excise duty paid from 24-8-1977 to 27-11-1977. The application was submitted to the Superintendent, Central Excise Range, who forwarded it to the Assistant Collector on 5-7-1980. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim as time-barred under Rule 11, as it was received after the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal, considering the Superintendent a part of the Assistant Collector's office. However, the Tribunal found that the statutory provision under Rule 11 mandates that the refund claim should be filed before the Assistant Collector within six months from the date of payment of duty. The Tribunal emphasized that this provision is binding and must be interpreted strictly, as confirmed by the Supreme Court's judgment in Polstar and Co. Ltd. v. Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax.

2. Practice of submitting refund claims to the Superintendent of Central Excise:
The respondents argued that there was a practice of submitting refund claims to the Superintendent of Central Excise in the Kanpur Collectorate. They cited several Tribunal decisions to support their claim. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of such a practice in the Kanpur Collectorate during the relevant period from August to December 1977. The Tribunal noted that Trade Notices issued by the Collectorate emphasized that refund applications must be made to the Assistant Collector and that filing claims with the Superintendent or Range Officer was not regular. The Tribunal concluded that the claim submitted by the respondents to the Superintendent was a stray instance and not part of an established practice.

3. Interpretation of Rule 11 and its mandatory nature:
Rule 11, as amended by Notification No. 267/77-C.E., dated 6-8-1977, clearly states that a refund claim must be filed before the Assistant Collector within six months from the date of payment of duty. The Tribunal reiterated that this statutory provision must be interpreted strictly, without adding, altering, or modifying its language. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Miles India Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs, which confirmed that quasi-judicial authorities cannot condone the delay in filing refund applications and are bound by the period of limitation. Consequently, the Assistant Collector's rejection of the refund claim as time-barred was justified under Rule 11.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-appeal No. 339-C.E./APPL/KNP/80, dated 24-9-1983, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, and allowed the appeal filed by the Department. The Tribunal held that there was no established practice of submitting refund claims to the Superintendent of Central Excise in the Kanpur Collectorate during the relevant period, and the statutory provision under Rule 11 must be strictly followed.