1998 (11) TMI 175 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Admissibility of refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
3. Consideration of refund claims filed with the Range Supdt.
4. Filing refund claims within the time limit specified in the Act.

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The appeals were admitted after a brief hearing as the issue involved was deemed short. The condonation of delay applications were filed, with the Appellant's Advocate highlighting that the appeals were initially filed on time, as indicated by the Registry's communication for rectifying defects. The Departmental Representative left the matter to the Bench's discretion, acknowledging the timely receipt of appeal papers by the Registry. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals was not established.

Admissibility of Refund Claims under Section 11B:
The Appellant contended that all five refund claims were timely filed before the Range Supdt., making them admissible under Section 11B of the Act. Citing precedents, the Advocate argued that presenting the application before the jurisdictional Supdt. equated to filing before the Assistant Collector, as observed in previous Tribunal decisions. Thus, the Appellant asserted that the refund claims were not time-barred.

Consideration of Refund Claims Filed with the Range Supdt.:
The Departmental Representative pointed out that the refund claims were returned by the Range Supdt. to the Appellants within a week of receipt, directing them to file with the Assistant Collector. Unlike previous cases where claims were not returned, the Appellants had ample time to resubmit to the proper officer, which was not done. Consequently, the Tribunal's earlier decisions were deemed inapplicable to the present circumstances.

Filing Refund Claims within the Time Limit Specified in the Act:
Upon review, it was noted that the refund claims, after being returned by the Range Supdt., were not filed with the Assistant Collector within the Act's specified time limit of six months. The claims were thus considered time-barred under Section 11B. The Appellant's argument regarding the absence of the Excise Clerk was dismissed for lack of evidence or mention in the appeal memorandum. The failure to address the filing of refund claims in the Clerk's absence was deemed insufficient, leading to the rejection of all five appeals by the Tribunal.