1996 (2) TMI 277 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the refund claim is barred by limitation under Rule 173L.
2. Whether D-3 intimation can be considered as a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the refund claim is barred by limitation under Rule 173L:

The appeal challenges the rejection of a refund claim by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy, on the grounds that the claim was filed six months after the return of goods to the factory, thus barred by limitation under Rule 173L. The appellants argued that they complied with the detailed procedure under Rule 173L, including filing a D-3 intimation within the stipulated period. They contended that this intimation should be considered as a refund claim, citing the Tribunal's decisions in Kothari Chemicals & Industries v. Collector of Central Excise and Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, which dealt with similar procedural issues under Rule 56A.

The Department argued that the requirements of Rule 11B are mandatory, and the refund claim must be filed within six months from the receipt of goods in the factory, as held in United Phosphorus Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Nanavati Chemical Industries v. U.O.I. The Tribunal agreed with the Department, noting that Rule 173L is an exception facilitating the return of defective goods for re-making, refining, or re-conditioning, and the refund claim must be filed within six months as per Section 11B. The Tribunal held that the appellants' claim was time-barred as it was filed beyond the six-month period.

2. Whether D-3 intimation can be considered as a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944:

The appellants argued that the D-3 intimation filed within the stipulated period should be deemed sufficient compliance for filing a refund claim under Section 11B. They cited cases where procedural delays in submitting duty-paying documents were condoned, and the refund claims were not considered time-barred. However, the Tribunal distinguished these cases, noting that they dealt with proforma credit under Rule 56A, not refund claims under Rule 173L.

The Tribunal observed that D-3 intimation is required to be filed before the proper officer for verifying the particulars of the goods within 48 hours of receipt in the factory, as per Rule 173L. The refund claim, however, must be filed before the Assistant Collector as per Section 11B. The Tribunal held that D-3 intimation cannot be considered a refund claim because the purposes of D-3 intimation and refund claim are different. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the refund claim was barred by limitation.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the refund claim was time-barred as it was filed beyond the six-month period stipulated under Rule 173L and Section 11B. The Tribunal clarified that D-3 intimation cannot be considered a refund claim, as the purposes of these procedures are distinct. The case law cited by the appellants was found distinguishable, and the Tribunal upheld the mandatory requirement of filing the refund claim within the prescribed time limit.