1990 (7) TMI 248 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection for excess excise duty paid due to a revision in duty rates.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 15,797.38 by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, which was confirmed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nasik. The appellant, represented by Shri S.U. Jagesha, argued that after a revision in duty rates through Notification No. 186/78 dated 18-10-1978, they filed a revised classification list to avail the benefit of the new rate and requested it to be effective from 18-10-1978. They also sought a refund for the excess amount paid. The appellant claimed that their refund application was rejected as time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, as Sec. 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act was not in force during the relevant period. They cited a precedent, Balaji Enterprises v. Collector of Central Excise, to support their claim.

The respondent, represented by Shri K.M. Mondal, contended that the revised classification list was filed on 17-11-1978, and any benefit under the notification could only be availed from the date of filing. Referring to Maharaj Paper Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, it was argued that a mere claim for credit in the RT-12 Return does not extend the limitation period for claiming a refund. The respondent emphasized that the refund claim could not be entertained for the period before 17-11-1978, as the benefit was sought under the revised notification.

The judgment by Shri P.K. Desai considered the submissions from both parties. It noted that the government revised the duty rates through Notification No. 186/78, eliminating the excise duty of Rs. 800/- per M.T. The appellant filed a revised classification list on 17-11-1978, claiming it to be effective from 18-10-1978, and simultaneously requested a refund for the excess duty paid through a letter dated 20-11-1978. Despite the timing of the classification list filing, the letter clearly indicated a claim for refund of the excess amount paid, covering the period from 21-10-1978 to 14-11-1978. The judgment highlighted that the claim was made within the six-month period stipulated under Rule 11 of the Rules, irrespective of the subsequent filing of the classification list. It concluded that the claim for refund, based on the excess payment not chargeable to duty, lodged within the prescribed period, should be allowed. The rejection of the claim by the lower authorities was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed, with consequential relief to follow.