1993 (2) TMI 207 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the respondents are entitled to credit for duty paid on cancelled Gate-passes without making a specific request for credit at the time of assessment.
2. Whether the refund claim filed by the respondents beyond six months is time-barred.
3. Whether the Trade Notice issued by the Collector regarding the procedure for claiming credit on cancelled Gate-passes is applicable in this case.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the entitlement of the respondents to credit for duty paid on cancelled Gate-passes without a specific request for credit at the time of assessment. The respondents cancelled the Gate-passes and submitted the necessary documents and intimation to the assessing officer. The assessing officer did not grant credit, leading to a refund claim being filed, which was rejected as time-barred. The main contention was whether the duty payment could only be claimed through a refund claim as per Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondents, leading to the revenue appealing against this decision.

2. The second issue revolved around the time-barred refund claim filed by the respondents. The assessing officer rejected the refund claim as it was filed beyond six months. The appellant contended that the Asstt. Collector's decision to reject the claim was justified, while the respondents argued that the Collector (Appeals) rightly allowed their appeal. The time limitation under Section 11A was a crucial aspect in determining the validity of the refund claim.

3. The final issue centered on the applicability of the Trade Notice issued by the Collector regarding the procedure for claiming credit on cancelled Gate-passes. The respondents argued that the Trade Notice specified that no separate application was required for credit and that a request in the RT-12 return sufficed. The Trade Notice was cited as supporting evidence for the respondents' claim that they were entitled to credit without filing a refund claim. The Trade Notice's relevance in interpreting the procedural requirements for claiming credit was a key point of contention.

In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the Collector (Appeals)' decision to allow the respondents' claim for credit on cancelled Gate-passes. The Tribunal held that the respondents had fulfilled the requirements of Rule 173G(2) proviso (vii) by providing necessary intimation and documents to the assessing officer promptly. The assessing officer was obligated to investigate and grant credit based on the information in the RT-12 returns, even without a specific request for credit. The judgment emphasized that the provisions of Rule 173G(2) allowed for credit without a time limit or the need for a refund claim if the necessary requirements were met, as evidenced by compliance with the Trade Notice. The Supreme Court's judgment cited by the appellant was deemed irrelevant in this context, given the specific provisions of Rule 173G(2) governing the situation.