1989 (3) TMI 264 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Rule 173L is independent of Section 11B.
2. Whether Section 11B applies to refund claims under Rule 173L.
3. Whether the refund claim filed before the Superintendent instead of the Assistant Collector is valid under Section 11B.

Issue 1: Whether Rule 173L is independent of Section 11B.
The Tribunal examined whether Rule 173L, which pertains to the refund of duty on goods returned to the factory, is a complete code in itself or if it is subject to the time limits set by Section 11B. The respondents argued that Rule 173L is a complete code and should be considered independently of Section 11B, citing the Tribunal's decision in Sarabhai Chemicals v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, which stated that Rule 173L is a complete code regarding refund of duty on goods returned to the factory. The Tribunal agreed that Rule 173L provides the conditions required for claiming a refund but noted that it does not specify a time limit for filing such claims. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that while Rule 173L governs the technical conditions for refunds, it does not exclude the application of Section 11B's time limits.

Issue 2: Whether Section 11B applies to refund claims under Rule 173L.
The Tribunal found that Section 11B(b) specifically mentions cases involving goods returned to the factory, which is the subject matter of Rule 173L. This linkage implies that the time limits under Section 11B(i) apply to refund claims filed under Rule 173L. The Tribunal upheld the department's view that refund claims under Rule 173L must comply with the time limits prescribed by Section 11B.

Issue 3: Whether the refund claim filed before the Superintendent instead of the Assistant Collector is valid under Section 11B.
The Tribunal examined whether filing a refund claim with the Superintendent, who then forwards it to the Assistant Collector, satisfies the requirements of Section 11B. The appellant had followed an old practice of submitting claims through the Superintendent. The Tribunal noted that a public notice had been issued advising claimants to file directly with the Assistant Collector. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the Superintendent should have returned the claim immediately if it was not the correct procedure, thus allowing the claimant to refile it correctly. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, particularly Shri Ambica Khandsari Udyog v. C.C.E., Meerut, which held that filing a claim with the Superintendent, who is part of the Assistant Collector's establishment, is tantamount to filing with the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal concluded that since the claim was filed within the normal limitation period and the Superintendent's office is part of the Assistant Collector's establishment, the claim should be considered timely.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the case for examination on merits. The Tribunal held that Rule 173L is not independent of Section 11B and that refund claims under Rule 173L are subject to the time limits of Section 11B. Additionally, filing a claim with the Superintendent within the normal period of limitation is considered valid under Section 11B. The case was remanded for a merits-based examination of the refund claim.