1997 (4) TMI 272 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification and exemption under Notification 276/67 for methane consumption.
2. Claim of exemption under Notification No. 28/89 and subsequent refund claim.
3. Proper procedure for filing refund claims and the time limit for such claims.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification and exemption under Notification 276/67 for methane consumption
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing fertilizers and chemicals, initially claimed exemption under Notification 276/67 for methane captively consumed. However, a fresh classification list filed after the introduction of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, was disallowed the benefit of the said notification. Despite paying duty at 20% rate pending approval, the appellants claimed the benefit upon approval. The Collector (Appeals) denied the benefit, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: Claim of exemption under Notification No. 28/89 and subsequent refund claim
Subsequently, the appellants filed another classification list claiming exemption under Notification No. 28/89 for methane consumption and stopped paying duty. However, an amendment through Notification No. 110/89 led to the department rejecting the benefit. A refund claim filed on RT 12 return was rejected by the Collector (Appeals) on the grounds of being time-barred, as the claim was filed after the stipulated period.

Issue 3: Proper procedure for filing refund claims and the time limit for such claims
The advocate for the appellants argued that the refund claim was within the permissible time frame, citing precedents where appeals against RT 12 assessments were allowed. The Departmental Representative contended that a refund claim on RT 12 return was not sufficient and that a proper refund claim in the required form should have been submitted to the Assistant Collector. However, the Tribunal referred to previous judgments emphasizing the adjustment of excess duty paid against the duty assessed, without the necessity of a separate refund application. Rule 173-I was highlighted, indicating that the duty determined and paid by the assessee should be adjusted against the duty assessed, allowing for credit or debit as necessary. The Tribunal held that the refund was admissible to the appellants, as the claim made in the RT 12 return was considered a refund claim and was within the prescribed time limit under the Central Excise Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal based on the precedents and legal provisions discussed, granting the appellants the refund claimed for the excess duty paid.