1994 (3) TMI 233 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation.
2. Interpretation of Notification 175/86 regarding abatement from aggregate value for exemption purposes.
3. Calculation of limitation period for filing refund claims under Section 11B.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) based on limitation. The appellant had cleared goods valued at Rs. 19,60,000 on payment of duty, which were later exported. The appellant sought abatement of the value of these goods for the purpose of Notification 175/86 to claim a refund. The lower appellate authority rejected the plea, stating that the refund claim was time-barred as the relevant date for limitation was the date of payment of duty. The Asst. Collector also noted that the appellant had crossed the exemption limit of Rs. 75 lakhs before filing the refund claim, which was received beyond the prescribed period.

2. The appellant contended that certain goods were cleared under AR-4A procedure for export under a rebate claim to a trader in Bombay, which was not considered while calculating the aggregate value for exemption purposes. The appellant argued that the limitation period should be reckoned from the date of rebate allowance, as the refund claim could only be filed post-export. However, the lower authority maintained that the refund claim was filed beyond the six-month period stipulated under Section 11B from the date of duty payment.

3. The Department's representative argued that Notification 175/86 did not allow abatement from the aggregate value for goods cleared under the AR-4A procedure on payment of duty. Moreover, any refund claim related to clearances should have been filed within six months from the duty payment date. The Tribunal analyzed the contentions and observed that once the appellant crossed the exemption limit, they started clearing goods at full duty rates. The goods cleared under the AR-4A procedure were exported by a third party who obtained rebates, and the appellant, not being the exporter, had no entitlement to further benefits under the notification. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, stating that the refund claim was filed after the six-month period following the duty payment date and dismissed the appeal.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, interpretations of relevant provisions, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the appeal.