1983 (10) TMI 182 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding the time limit for filing a refund application.
2. Determination of the relevant date for the computation of the time limit for refund application.
3. Consideration of whether a letter requesting a specimen form constitutes a valid application for refund.
4. Application of relevant case laws and government orders in deciding the case.

Analysis:
The case involved a Revision Application filed before the Central Government, which was transferred to the Tribunal for disposal as an appeal. The dispute arose when the Appellate Collector rejected the claim for a refund of Rs. 50,000, stating that the application for refund was time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants argued that the date of payment of duty was not the relevant date for computing the time limit for filing a refund application, citing a Government of India decision and contending that a letter requesting a specimen form should be considered as the date of application.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. It was noted that the actual application for refund was made on 29-2-1980, but the letter dated 26-9-1979 requesting a specimen form was not considered a valid application for refund. The Tribunal rejected the request to consider the letter as an application, emphasizing that it lacked essential details required for a refund claim. Additionally, the Tribunal analyzed the Government of India order cited by the appellants and concluded that it did not interpret Rule 11 as claimed by the appellants.

Furthermore, the Tribunal agreed with the department's representative that the debiting of the PLA constitutes the act of payment of duty, and the assessment of RT 12 is merely for levy and assessment. Citing a judgment of the Kerala High Court, the Tribunal highlighted that the crucial date for computation of the time limit for refund application is the date of payment of duty. As the exemption in this case related to the value of clearance in the past year, the Tribunal concurred with the Kerala High Court judgment's interpretation.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it based on the analysis of Rule 11, the relevant date for refund application, the nature of the letter requesting a specimen form, and the application of pertinent case laws and government orders.