1987 (3) TMI 381 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of the time limit for filing a refund claim for duty paid.
2. Clarification on the procedure for filing refund claims in the Central Excise office.
3. Interpretation of the period of limitation for refund claims under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the time limit for filing a refund claim for duty paid by the respondents on 8-3-1979. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim as it was received in his office on 15-9-1979, more than six months after the duty payment date. However, the Appellate Collector overturned this decision, stating that the claim was within the three-year limitation period under common law. The Tribunal noted that the refund claim was routed through the Inspector and received in the office of the Superintendent on 14-8-1979, within six months from the duty payment date. The Inspector processed the claim and forwarded it to the Assistant Collector, who received it on 15-9-1979. The Tribunal concluded that the date of receipt in the Inspector's office should be considered as the date of making the refund claim for Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, thus rejecting the Assistant Collector's time-barred decision.

2. The Tribunal sought clarification on the procedure for filing refund claims in the Central Excise office, specifically whether there were any trade notices or instructions allowing assessees to file claims with the Inspector or Superintendent even if addressed to the Assistant Collector. The department failed to provide a response to clarify this matter. The Tribunal observed that the practice of filing claims with the Inspector for necessary checks before consideration by the Assistant Collector was in accordance with prescribed procedures in the Collectorate.

3. The Appellate Collector had based the decision on the period of limitation prescribed in common law rather than Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal disagreed with this approach, citing previous decisions that supported Rule 11 as the governing provision for time limits on refund claims. However, since the refund claim in this case was filed within the limitation period of Rule 11, the Tribunal upheld the Appellate Collector's order setting aside the Assistant Collector's rejection of the claim as time-barred. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed the Assistant Collector to process the refund claim within the prescribed time limit.