1997 (3) TMI 274 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Approval of price lists and assessment of RT 12 returns.
2. Requirement of filing separate refund claims.
3. Application of Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
4. Time bar on refund claims.
5. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Approval of Price Lists and Assessment of RT 12 Returns:
The appellants were clearing excisable goods based on declared prices and claimed deductions. The department did not initially approve these price lists. Upon later approval by the Assistant Collector, the RT 12 returns filed during the pending period were assessed, showing excess duty paid. The Range Superintendent directed the appellants to file formal refund claims for the excess duty.

2. Requirement of Filing Separate Refund Claims:
The appellants took suo motu credit of the excess duty shown in the RT 12 returns, arguing that Rule 173-I did not require separate refund claims. They appealed against the Superintendent's direction to file separate refund claims, which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). Consequently, the appellants filed refund applications, which were rejected as time-barred.

3. Application of Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The appellants contended that Rule 173-I mandated the Superintendent to direct the assessee to take credit for excess duty paid without requiring separate refund claims. This interpretation was supported by the Tribunal's judgments in Simplex Mills and Balaji Fasteners, which clarified that Rule 173-I did not envisage separate refund applications for excess duty found during the assessment of RT 12 returns.

4. Time Bar on Refund Claims:
The appellants' refund applications were rejected as time-barred. The learned SDR argued that Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, required separate refund applications, making the Superintendent's direction correct. The Tribunal's judgment in Buckau Wolf India Ltd. supported this view, emphasizing the need for separate refund claims when the nature of the enquiry extended beyond the Superintendent's purview.

5. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The Tribunal distinguished between cases requiring separate refund claims under Section 11B and those covered by Rule 173-I. It held that when excess duty payment resulted from the assessment of RT 12 returns based on approved price lists, no separate refund applications were needed. However, if excess payment arose from applying a lower rate or value than approved, Section 11B would apply.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed Appeals E/66/87 and E/67/87, setting aside the impugned order and ruling that the appellants correctly took suo motu credit of the excess duty. The other appeals (E/241/89 and E/242/89) were dismissed as infructuous since the credit had already been taken. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 173-I did not require separate refund applications for excess duty found during the assessment of RT 12 returns, aligning with the judgments in Simplex Mills and Balaji Fasteners.