1990 (12) TMI 230 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of refund claim as time-barred due to failure to file within the prescribed period.

Summary:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Amrit Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. against the rejection of their refund claim by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) on the grounds of being time-barred. The dispute arose from the excess duty paid by the appellants due to a delayed notification, leading to a refund claim of Rs. 4,109 (Basic duty) and Rs. 205.43 (Spl. Duty). The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim as time-barred, which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals), prompting the present appeal.

The main contention by the appellants was that their letter dated 17th May, 1984 to the Superintendent, pointing out the excess payment and requesting a refund, should be considered a valid refund claim. They argued that the delay in filing the formal refund claim was due to the assurance by the Superintendent that the excess duty paid would be credited to their account upon completion of the RT 12 assessment. The appellants cited various cases to support their argument that the letter constituted a valid refund claim, even if not in the prescribed Form I or addressed to the Assistant Collector directly.

The Departmental Representative countered that the letter did not meet the requirements of a regular refund claim under the law, as it was not in the prescribed form and was addressed to the Superintendent instead of the Assistant Collector as mandated by Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. They argued that the subsequent formal refund claim filed after three years indicated that the original letter was not intended as a refund claim.

After considering the arguments and relevant case laws, the Tribunal found that the letter dated 17th May, 1984 constituted a valid refund claim by the appellants. The Tribunal held that the appellants had staked their claim through the letter, and the subsequent formal refund claim was a continuation of the original claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay in filing the formal claim was due to the understanding that the excess duty would be adjusted as per the RT 12 assessment. The Tribunal also noted that the completion of the RT 12 assessment in 1987 marked the finalization of the assessment and duty payment, making the refund claim timely based on the completion date rather than the initial duty payment date.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order-in-appeal and ruling in favor of the appellants. The appellants were deemed entitled to the consequential refund based on the excess duty paid and the valid refund claim staked through the letter dated 17th May, 1984.