1989 (1) TMI 267 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional issue regarding filing of refund claim.
2. Time limitation for filing refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act.
3. Competency of the Asstt. Collector (MCD) in processing refund claims.
4. Applicability of previous decisions on similar cases.

Jurisdictional Issue:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay pertained to a refund claim filed by the appellants for duty paid on shortages noticed during the transfer of goods from Bombay to Pimpri. The Asstt. Collector (MCD) rejected the claim, stating that it should have been filed with the Central Excise Collectorate, Pune, where the duty was paid, rather than at Bombay. The appellants argued that they filed the claim in Bombay due to the shortage being noticed there and that the Asstt. Collector (MCD) should have directed them to the correct authority if he lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the appellants should have appealed the initial rejection instead of filing a fresh claim, leading to the rejection by the Asstt. Collector, Pune.

Time Limitation under Section 27:
The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Pune rejected the appellants' refund claim as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the limitation prescribed under the Act must be adhered to, and the appellants' failure to appeal the initial rejection by the Asstt. Collector (MCD) in Bombay led to the rejection by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Pune.

Competency of Asstt. Collector (MCD):
The Tribunal highlighted that the Asstt. Collector (MCD) in Bombay should have promptly returned the claim if he lacked jurisdiction, rather than delaying and rejecting it later. The appellants were expected to challenge this decision through an appeal, which they failed to do. The subsequent submission of a refund claim to the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Pune was deemed time-barred, as per the provisions of the Customs Act.

Applicability of Previous Decisions:
The appellants cited a previous decision regarding the treatment of refund claims presented within time to the appropriate authority. However, the Tribunal clarified that the issue in the present case involved different Collectorates and the duty payment locations, making the initial claim submission to the Asstt. Collector (MCD) in Bombay incorrect. The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory limitation under the Customs Act could not be extended or condoned, even in cases of alleged mistakes by the department, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, citing the appellants' failure to follow the correct appeal process and adhere to the statutory time limitations under the Customs Act. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of filing claims with the appropriate authority based on the location of duty payment.