1997 (1) TMI 219 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the refund claim filed by the party was barred by time.

Analysis:
The central issue in this case was whether the refund claim filed by the party was time-barred. The appellant argued that their refund claim, related to Notification 198/76, was filed within six months of the past clearance exceeding the limit. The appellant contended that a letter dated 30-3-1977, serving as a protest/refund claim, was submitted due to the absence of a prescribed proforma during that period. The appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support their claim. They emphasized that they could not quantify the refund claim until the Assistant Collector approved their past clearances. The appellant asserted that their refund claim was not barred by limitation as they had not availed the exemption on their own or paid duty provisionally under protest. The appellant's argument was based on the premise that the Assistant Collector's delay in approving their past clearances justified the timing of their refund claim.

On the other hand, the department contended that the letter dated 30-3-1977 could not be considered a refund claim and was merely informational. The department maintained that the refund claim was time-barred, supporting the decisions of the authorities below.

The Tribunal carefully analyzed the matter and noted that no specific proforma was prescribed for filing a refund claim within the specified period. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal held that a letter of protest could be treated as a refund claim if no prescribed proforma existed. The Tribunal found that the appellant's letter dated 30-3-1977, which explicitly requested a rebate, could be construed as a proper claim for refund. Consequently, the Tribunal disagreed with the authorities below and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for a decision on the merits of the refund claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the authorities below had not addressed the issue on its merits and directed the Assistant Collector to provide the appellants with an opportunity to present their case before issuing a final order in accordance with the law. Therefore, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, indicating that the refund claim was not time-barred.