1993 (2) TMI 193 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the impugned order is bad in law in view of the fact that the De novo Adjudication Order had traversed beyond the Remand Order passed originally by the Collector (Appeals)?
2. Whether the application filed by the respondents before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta can be treated as the application for refund?

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the impugned order is bad in law in view of the fact that the De novo Adjudication Order had traversed beyond the Remand Order passed originally by the Collector (Appeals)?

The learned Advocate for the respondents argued that the Assistant Collector (Patna) acted beyond the mandate given by the Collector (Appeals) in the remand order. The remand order had directed the Assistant Collector to consider the date of submission of the refund claim to the Assistant Collector, Calcutta as the date of submission. The Collector (Appeals) had observed that the proper course of action would have been to inform the respondents that the Assistant Collector, Calcutta was not the proper officer to deal with such claims and to forward the papers to the Assistant Collector, Patna. The Assistant Collector, Patna, however, did not follow this directive and instead rejected the claims as time-barred. The Tribunal held that the de novo adjudication should proceed in the light of the remand order and cannot go beyond its scope. Therefore, the impugned orders were not contrary to the terms of the remand order.

2. Whether the application filed by the respondents before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta can be treated as the application for refund?

The respondents had filed refund claims with the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta within the statutory time-limit. The Assistant Collector, Calcutta, after scrutinizing the claims, directed the respondents to file the claims with the Assistant Collector, Patna. The claims were then filed with the Assistant Collector, Patna, but were rejected as time-barred. The Department contended that the refund claims should have been filed with the jurisdictional Assistant Collector, Patna, and not with the Assistant Collector, Calcutta. However, the Tribunal observed that Rule 97 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, allows for goods to be returned to the same or any other factory for reprocessing. The respondents had complied with the requirements of Rule 97 and had filed the refund claims with the Assistant Collector, Calcutta, under whose jurisdiction the reprocessing was done. The Tribunal held that the filing of the claims with the Assistant Collector, Calcutta, within the prescribed time-limit should be treated as the original claims. The Assistant Collector, Calcutta should have forwarded the papers to the Assistant Collector, Patna, under intimation to the respondents. The Tribunal concluded that the refund claims were not barred by limitation and directed the Assistant Collector, Patna to determine the refund claims on merits after granting a personal hearing to the respondents.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patna to determine the refund claims of the respondents on merits. The Tribunal also suggested that the Central Board of Excise and Customs may lay down suitable guidelines to regulate the proper procedure to be followed in such cases involving officers of more than one jurisdiction.