1990 (6) TMI 181 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection based on time-bar.
2. Provisional assessments during the period in question.
3. Appeal for refund and consequential relief.

Issue 1: Refund claim rejection based on time-bar
The appeal pertains to a refund claim for the period from 1-4-1976 to 12-8-1976, rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on the grounds of being time-barred as the claim was submitted after the stipulated deadline. The Assistant Collector observed that the claim should have been lodged on or before 31-3-1977. The appellants contested the rejection, arguing that they were not given a personal hearing or a show cause notice to establish that the claim was not time-barred. The appeal was then taken to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), who upheld the rejection, leading to the current appeal.

Issue 2: Provisional assessments during the period in question
The learned Advocate argued that all assessments during the period under the refund claim were provisional, citing a previous Tribunal order that allowed a similar refund claim for a different period. The Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, and another Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, confirmed that the assessments for Coca-Cola and Fanta were provisional throughout the calendar year 1976. The Assistant Collector's order from 22-1-1987 also confirmed the provisional nature of the assessments for the relevant period. Based on this evidence, it was contended that the time limit for lodging the refund claim should not apply in this case.

Issue 3: Appeal for refund and consequential relief
The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, found that the assessments during the period in question were indeed provisional. Therefore, the rejection of the refund claim by the Assistant Collector on the basis of being time-barred was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, directing the Department to pay the refund of the excess excise duty paid during the specified period to the appellants. Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the Department to make the refund payment promptly within 2 months from the date of the Tribunal's order.

This judgment highlights the importance of considering the provisional nature of assessments in determining the applicability of time limits for refund claims and emphasizes the right to a fair hearing and opportunity to present one's case in matters of tax refunds.