1995 (6) TMI 137 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim due to lower rate of duty prescribed by notification.
- Interpretation of Rule 173-I regarding assessment and refund claims.
- Bar on refund claim under Section 11B due to delay in filing.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim by the lower appellate authority concerning the payment of excess duty due to a lower rate prescribed by notifications 111/90 and 112/90. The appellants argued that they were entitled to the refund based on Rule 173-I, as they had paid higher duty according to the approved classification list. However, the lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal, stating that the Superintendent could not allow credits for duty changes and that the appellants should have filed a revised classification list and refund claim before the Assistant Collector.

2. The appellants contended that their refund claim was delayed because they believed Rule 173-I entitled them to an automatic refund based on the assessment of RT 12 returns. The representative of the appellants was questioned about the legal basis for their case under Rule 173-I and the delay in filing the refund application under Section 11B beyond the six-month period. The appellants' representative argued that they were under the impression that Rule 173-I allowed for automatic refunds based on RT 12 assessments.

3. The DR argued that under Rule 173-I, refunds for excess amounts could only be allowed based on approved classification and price lists, which the appellants had not revised despite the downward revision of duty. The DR pointed out that the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B since it was not filed within six months. The Tribunal observed that the appellants' claim for refund under Rule 173-I was not valid as the duty had been correctly paid based on the approved lists, and any excess payment should have been addressed through a refund claim under Section 11B within the limitation period.

4. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' delay in filing the refund claim beyond the six-month period from the date of duty payment rendered their claim invalid. Despite the department's endorsement on the RT 12 indicating the excess duty paid and the option to claim a refund, the appellants failed to meet the statutory deadline under Section 11B. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, emphasizing that refunds for excess duty payments must be claimed within the prescribed time frame under Section 11B, rather than relying on Rule 173-I for automatic refunds based on RT 12 assessments.