1985 (6) TMI 159 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal challenges the rejection of a refund claim as time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Refund Claim Time-Barred
The appellant, a company manufacturing liquid carbon dioxide, sought a refund of excise duty relief under a specific notification. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector and subsequently by the Appellate Collector as time-barred under Rule 11. The appellant argued that various letters sent to the authorities constituted an application for refund or a protest under Rule 11. The Department contended that the letters did not qualify as a refund application and that limitation rules must be strictly construed. The Tribunal examined a specific letter dated 20-6-1978, addressed to the Superintendent and copied to the Assistant Collector, which clearly stated the appellant's claim for refund. The Tribunal concluded that this letter constituted a valid refund application under Rule 11, despite not being sent to the correct Assistant Collector initially. As a result, the rejection of the refund claim was deemed legally unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the appellant's letter dated 20-6-1978, which was construed as a valid refund application under Rule 11, warranted the allowance of the appeal. The rejection of the refund claim was deemed legally unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed on this basis.