1987 (4) TMI 234 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of excess duty paid within a specific period.
2. Application for refund rejected as barred by limitation.
3. Interpretation of Rule 11 and Rule 173J of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
4. Applicability of limitation period for claiming refund.
5. Comparison of old and new Rule 11.
6. Impact of a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court on the case.

Analysis:
1. The respondent manufacturer applied for a refund of excess duty paid between 15-7-1977 to 3-8-1977, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector as barred by limitation. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay allowed the appeal, stating that the regular claim for refund lodged on 21-6-1978 was within the limitation period of one year from the date of duty payment as per old Rule 11 and Rule 173J of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

2. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay appealed to the Tribunal against the decision. The Departmental Representative argued that the claim for refund was beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed under an amended Rule 11 from 6-8-1977. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the right to claim refund arose when the old Rule 11 was in force, allowing the claim within the one-year limitation period.

3. The Tribunal referenced a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Universal Drinks Private Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that the new Rule 11 was prospective and applied to cases where the right to claim refund arose after its enforcement. Therefore, the contention that the six-month limitation under the new Rule 11 should apply was dismissed, upholding the decision to allow the refund claim within the one-year limitation period under the old rule.

4. Based on the Bombay High Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the new Rule 11 did not apply retrospectively to claims where the right to refund had arisen before its implementation. Consequently, the appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay was dismissed, affirming the decision to allow the refund claim within the one-year limitation period under the old rule.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of refund claim, limitation period, interpretation of rules, and the impact of relevant legal precedents on the case.