1988 (5) TMI 165 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim for excise duty on Benzene.
2. Date of filing the refund claim.
3. Limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
4. Applicability of Rule 173J.
5. Remand of the issue for examination.
6. Direction for expeditious disposal.
7. Miscellaneous Application by Hindustan Polymer Ltd.

Analysis:

The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim for excise duty paid on Benzene by the Collector (Appeals), C.E. Calcutta. The claim was for the period 1-2-1977 to 26-1-1978. The authorities rejected the claim based on limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant contended that the claim was submitted on 5-5-1978, not 6-6-1978, and argued that part of the claim fell within the limitation period as per the law then in force.

The Departmental Representative argued that the appellant did not raise the 5-5-1978 submission earlier and that the plea regarding the one-year limitation under Rule 173J was also not previously considered. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not raised the 5-5-1978 submission before any authority earlier. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the refund application was made on 6-6-1978, as per the original authority's determination.

Regarding the applicability of Rule 173J, the Tribunal allowed the appellant to raise the plea, despite it not being previously raised, due to the nature of the appellant's refund claim suggesting that the duty collection was unauthorized. The Tribunal remanded the issue for further examination considering Rule 11 along with Rule 173J for the appellant's refund claim.

The appellant relied on a Tribunal ruling to support the argument that the refund application should be considered for accrued rights within the limitation period under Section 173J. The Tribunal, without expressing an opinion on the merits, set aside the impugned order and remanded the issue for examination in light of the observations made regarding the applicability of Rule 11 and Rule 173J.

The Tribunal directed the original authority to prioritize the expeditious disposal of the matter, considering the prolonged pendency since 1978. Additionally, a Miscellaneous Application filed by Hindustan Polymer Ltd. was deemed misconceived in law and rejected by the Tribunal.