1997 (10) TMI 215 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 173-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding excess excise duty payment.
2. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to all cases of refund of excess excise duty.
3. Requirement of making a refund application under Section 11B when excess duty is indicated in assessment memorandum.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 173-I and Section 11B
The Tribunal addressed whether Rule 173-I and Section 11B are mutually exclusive in cases of excess excise duty payment pointed out in assessment memoranda. The Tribunal found that the Superintendent, while assessing RT 12 returns, was working within the framework of approved price lists by the Assistant Collector. The excess duty identified was a result of the price list approval. The Tribunal held that the Superintendent's direction for separate refund applications went against Rule 173-I(2), which mandates the assessee to take credit in their account current. The Tribunal cited the cases of Simplex Mills and Balaji Fasteners to support the assessee's right to take suo motu credit for excess duty paid.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 11B
The Tribunal considered whether Section 11B applies to all cases where a refund of excess excise duty becomes due. It was noted that the excess duty payment arose from the approval of price lists by the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal held that the assessee was correct in law to take suo motu credit for the excess duty paid, as per Rule 173-I(2). The Tribunal emphasized the binding authority of the Division Bench judgment in Balaji Fasteners and the consistency of the W.R.B.'s judgment in Buckau Wolf India Ltd. with the earlier decisions.

Issue 3: Requirement of Refund Application under Section 11B
The Tribunal examined whether a refund application under Section 11B is necessary when the excess excise duty is indicated in the assessment memorandum. It was observed that the Superintendent's direction for separate refund claims was contrary to Rule 173-I(2). The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the respondents and rejected subsequent appeals on refund claims as infructuous, emphasizing the correctness of the suo motu credits taken by the respondents.

The Revenue's contention that the questions raised are questions of law was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the construction of Rule 173-I and the judgments cited were clear, with no conflicting interpretations. The Tribunal rejected the Reference Applications, stating that no question of law worth referring arose from its order.