1988 (4) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim for the period from 1-4-1985 to 27-4-1985 due to exceeding the time limit.
2. Partial rejection of refund claim for the subsequent period up to 31-8-1985 due to duty collection from customers but not paid to the government.

Analysis:
1. The appellants contested the rejection of their refund claim for the period from 1-4-1985 to 27-4-1985, citing Section 11 B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which sets a time limit of six months from the date of duty payment for filing refund claims. They argued that the starting point of limitation should be the date of assessment of the monthly RT-12 return, not the date of payment of duty. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the plain words "the date of payment of duty" should be interpreted as such. The Tribunal highlighted that the payment of duty before goods removal is crucial, and considering it otherwise would imply goods removal without duty payment, which is unacceptable.

2. The appellants also challenged the partial rejection of their refund claim for the subsequent period up to 31-8-1985. They contended that the duty collected from customers, but not paid to the government, should not be considered as part of their price realization for the goods. However, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, stating that the duty paid by the assessee at the pre-approved rate and value cannot be deemed a provisional deposit. The Tribunal clarified that the Self Removal Procedure involves pre-approved duty rates and values, and the duty payment is based on these approved parameters, not subject to provisional assessment.

3. The appellants relied on past judgments and interpretations to support their arguments, but the Tribunal emphasized that those cases were not directly relevant to the interpretation of "the date of payment of duty" under Section 11 B for refund claims. The Tribunal also highlighted that the presence of sub-section (5) in Section 11 B reinforces the application of the time limit for refund claims based on the date of duty payment. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim for the period from 1-4-1985 to 27-4-1985, as it was filed beyond the six-month time limit from the date of duty payment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower authorities' rejection of the refund claim for the specified periods due to exceeding the statutory time limit and the duty collection from customers without payment to the government.