1997 (4) TMI 267 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellants is valid under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Whether the payment of duty under Chapter X procedure qualifies as provisional assessment and is exempt from the six-month time limit for refund claims.
3. Interpretation of Rule 196 and Rule 173N in relation to the time frame for filing refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in bearing manufacturing, supplied goods under Chapter X procedure. The Assistant Collector rejected a refund claim of Rs. 1,19,460 under Section 11B but sanctioned a refund of Rs. 28,567 as it was filed within six months of duty payment. The ld. Counsel argued that the payment was provisional due to the bond executed for re-warehousing certificate production, citing relevant case law and the Apex Court's interpretation of Section 11B.

2. The ld. Counsel contended that Rule 196 requires duty payment if the re-warehousing certificate is not produced, making it distinct from a simple duty assessment. Referring to Rule 173N, he argued that the absence of a time frame for filing refund claims implies that the Act's six-month limit should apply. However, the Ld. SDR argued that the specific provision of Section 11B governs refund claims, emphasizing that duty was not paid under protest or provisional assessment, warranting rejection of the claim due to the elapsed six-month period.

3. The Tribunal noted that the goods were cleared under Chapter X procedure with a bond for the re-warehousing certificate. As the duty was paid without protest and the refund claim exceeded six months, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision. It clarified that the absence of a time frame in Rules 192 to 196 and Rule 173N defers to the Act's provisions, particularly Section 11B, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, as the payment was not under protest, and the Act's time limit for refund claims prevailed over the absence of a specific time frame in the Rules, concluding that the appeal lacked legal merit.