1987 (4) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Calculation of limitation period for refund claim under erstwhile Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The reference application raised the question of whether the limitation period for a refund claim should be calculated from the date of receipt by the Assistant Collector or by a subordinate officer. The Tribunal examined if this question arose from the order in question (No. A/628/86-NRB dated 5-12-1986).

2. Prior to 6-8-1977, there was no requirement to file refund applications with the Assistant Collector. After an amendment on 6-8-1977, applications were to be filed with the Assistant Collector. Trade notices in 1977 and 1979 clarified this requirement. The practice in Kanpur Collectorate was to accept refund claims by lower officers on behalf of the Assistant Collector.

3. Relying on trade notice No. 206/80 and a previous Tribunal judgment, the impugned order held that refund claims were accepted by lower officers on behalf of the Assistant Collector before 1980. Another judgment contradicted this, stating that the time limit should be calculated from the date of receipt by the Assistant Collector.

4. A different judgment highlighted that the time limit should be calculated from the date of receipt by the Assistant Collector. There was no evidence of an established practice in Kanpur Collectorate for filing claims with lower officers.

5. The case involved a refund claim from 1979. The absence of established practice was based on a letter from an Additional Collector. The department did not provide evidence to the contrary. A trade notice suggested that claims accepted by lower officers on behalf of the Assistant Collector were valid.

6. The judgment in Miles India Ltd. v. Assistant Collector was misapplied as it did not address the specific issue of calculating the time limit for refund claims. The Collector's supplementary instructions under Rule 233 were considered beneficial and enforceable, as they aimed to ensure just and fair administration of the law.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no substantial question of law for reference to the High Court in the impugned order. Therefore, the reference application was rejected based on the analysis of the relevant legal provisions and practices.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the interpretation of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the application of established practices in determining the calculation of the limitation period for refund claims.