1990 (9) TMI 168 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for sugar incentive rebate under notification No. 132/82 as amended by notification No. 183/82. Time limitation for filing the claim under Section 11-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Dispute regarding the filing of the claim with the Resident Inspector and its impact on the time bar. Interpretation of the law on filing refund claims with the Assistant Collector. Department's appeal on the Resident Inspector's role as an agent of the Assistant Collector. Applicability of estoppel against the Statute. Comparison with relevant judgments on similar issues.

Analysis:
The case involved a claim for a sugar incentive rebate under specific notifications, with a focus on the time limitation for filing the claim as per Section 11-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The dispute arose due to the claim initially being filed with the Resident Inspector, although it was within the statutory time limit. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim as time-barred based on the date of receipt in his office, which was after the stipulated period. However, the lower appellate authority overturned this decision, emphasizing that the claim was filed within time with the Resident Inspector, who delayed returning it for filing with the Assistant Collector.

The department contended that the Resident Inspector was not an agent of the Assistant Collector, and Section 11-B mandated filing refund claims directly with the Assistant Collector. They argued against considering the delay caused by departmental officers as an excuse, citing the principle of no estoppel against the Statute. Reference was made to a Tribunal judgment supporting this position. Conversely, the respondents highlighted the practice and procedure of filing claims with the Resident Inspector, who interacted with them and delayed instructing them to file with the Assistant Collector. They relied on precedents emphasizing the duty of departmental officers to guide industry practices.

The Tribunal, considering the facts and arguments, upheld the lower appellate authority's decision based on the principle that departmental officers are responsible for guiding industry practices. They stressed that the delay in filing with the Assistant Collector could not be attributed to the assessee, especially when the claim was initially addressed to the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal found merit in the respondent's reliance on relevant judgments and dismissed the department's appeal, aligning with consistent precedents on similar issues. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of departmental responsibility in ensuring compliance with statutory procedures, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.