1983 (6) TMI 93 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Time bar under Section 11-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
2. Legality of the refund granted by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).
3. Compliance with Central Excise Rules, particularly Rules 174-H and 173-L.
4. Authority of the Tribunal to consider new pleas not raised in the original proceedings.
5. Distinction between administrative and legal capacities of the Asstt. Collector.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Time Bar under Section 11-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944:
The primary issue in this case is whether the refund claim by M/s. Power Build Ltd. is barred by the time limit under Section 11-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the claims for refund were time-barred except for the duty paid on 26-6-1980. The respondents contended that their claim was not filed under Section 11-B but under general provisions of law, citing various judicial pronouncements to support their argument that the time bar does not apply when duty is collected without the authority of law. However, the Tribunal found that the claim is indeed hit by the time bar under Section 11-B, following the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Madras Rubber Factory, which held that claims filed beyond the statutory time limit are not admissible.

2. Legality of the Refund Granted by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals):
The appellant argued that the order dated 4-11-1982 by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was erroneous and illegal as it sanctioned a refund without considering the time bar. The Tribunal agreed with this contention, stating that the Collector's order is not legal due to the time bar under Section 11-B. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) with the modification that the refund of duty amounting to Rs. 3,504/- paid on 26-6-1980 should be sanctioned as it is not hit by the time bar.

3. Compliance with Central Excise Rules, Particularly Rules 174-H and 173-L:
The appellant contended that M/s. Power Build Ltd. did not follow the prescribed procedure under Rules 174-H and 173-L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The respondents argued that since their claim was outside the machinery of the Excise Law, the alleged contraventions of these rules would not affect their claim. The Tribunal, however, found that the respondents had paid the duty under the Central Excise law and approached the departmental authorities for a refund, thus falling within the purview of the Central Excise law. Therefore, compliance with the rules was necessary.

4. Authority of the Tribunal to Consider New Pleas Not Raised in the Original Proceedings:
The respondents argued that the appellant cannot take up a new plea in the appeal. However, the Tribunal held that it has the authority under Rule 10 of the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate (Procedure) Rules, 1982, to consider new pleas to ensure the correct interpretation of the law. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no fetter on its discretion to consider new grounds.

5. Distinction Between Administrative and Legal Capacities of the Asstt. Collector:
The respondents claimed that they approached the Asstt. Collector in his administrative capacity and not under the Central Excises & Salt Act. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the Asstt. Collector functions under the Central Excises & Salt Act and the Central Excise Rules, and has no other administrative function. The Tribunal noted that if the respondents intended to approach a non-departmental officer, they should have filed a suit in a Civil Court, which they did not do.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 4-11-1982, except for the refund of duty amounting to Rs. 3,504/- paid on 26-6-1980, which was not hit by the time bar. The appeal by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise (Legal), Baroda was allowed, and the cross-objection by M/s. Power Build Ltd. was dismissed as it was not sustainable legally.