1995 (5) TMI 169 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim time-barred based on duty payment dates.
2. Applicability of Section 11B for refund of duty.
3. Provisional assessment impact on refund claim time limit.

Issue 1: Refund claim time-barred based on duty payment dates
The appeal was filed by M/s. Tata Yodogawa Limited against the rejection of their refund claim for Central Excise duty paid on finished rolls. The dispute arose as they had paid duty twice on the same goods due to delays in receiving the rolls back from their job worker. The Assistant Collector rejected their refund claim as time-barred, considering the duty payment date of 13-7-1990 as the relevant date for the claim, instead of the subsequent payment date of 24-9-1990. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal held that the refund claim filed on 22-1-1991 was indeed time-barred as the duty paid on 13-7-1990 was considered refundable in principle, not the duty paid on 24-9-1990. The second duty payment was deemed correctly paid, and the time limit for the refund claim was calculated from the first duty payment date, resulting in the rejection of the claim.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 11B for refund of duty
The appellant relied on various Tribunal decisions and court judgments to support their claim for refund, arguing that Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, did not apply to the refund of duty paid twice on the same goods. They cited cases where the time limit for refund was computed from the date of the excess payment of duty, not the original payment date. However, the Tribunal differentiated the present case from those precedents, emphasizing that the duty payments made by the appellant were not without legal authority at the time of payment. The Tribunal also highlighted a Bombay High Court ruling where the refund claim was required to be based on the first payment of duty, not subsequent payments, in cases of short-shipped goods. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the time limit for the refund claim based on the initial duty payment date, in line with statutory requirements.

Issue 3: Provisional assessment impact on refund claim time limit
An alternative plea was raised regarding the provisional assessment of the appellant's goods covered by their RT-12 return for July 1990. The appellant argued that since some returns were provisionally assessed, the time limit for refund should be calculated from the finalization of such provisional assessments. Citing a Tribunal decision, the appellant contended that a refund claim made before finalizing provisional assessments should not be considered time-barred. The Tribunal acknowledged this argument and remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector to determine if the assessment for the goods covered by the July 1990 RT-12 return was indeed provisional. The appeal was allowed on this limited question, and the case was disposed of accordingly.