1999 (2) TMI 182 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred refund claim.
2. Provisional release of seized goods.
3. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Issue 1: Time-barred refund claim
The case involved a refund claim of Rs. 56,160/- filed by the respondents after the excisable goods were provisionally released by the revenue authorities. The Deputy Commissioner initially dropped the demand for payment of duty, leading to the refund claim. The appellant argued that the refund claim was time-barred, citing a Supreme Court decision in the case of Miles India Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Customs. The appellant contended that the refund was filed in 1995, which was beyond the prescribed time limit of six months from the payment of duty.

Issue 2: Provisional release of seized goods
The respondents had deposited the amount at the time of provisional release of the seized goods, and the proceedings related to the seized goods were subsequently dropped by the Dy. Collector. The Dy. Collector found no evidence of clandestine removal of excisable goods and unconditionally released the truck from which the goods were seized. Following this, the respondents requested a refund of the amount deposited for the provisional release of the goods.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act
The revenue relied on the Supreme Court decision in the Miles India Limited case, emphasizing that authorities are bound by the statutory provisions, particularly Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. This section prescribes a time limit of six months from the payment of duty for filing a refund claim. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise, in the impugned order, distinguished the present case from the provisions of Section 11B. The Commissioner referenced previous decisions by CEGAT and the Bombay High Court, highlighting that refund claims made pursuant to statutory requirements are not governed by the time bar provision of Section 11B. The Commissioner concluded that the amount deposited by the respondents for the provisional release of goods was not subject to the time bar under Section 11B, as it was in compliance with statutory requirements.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal by the revenue. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order, emphasizing that the amount deposited by the respondents for the provisional release of goods was not time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The decision highlighted the distinction between refund claims made in compliance with statutory requirements and those subject to the time limit prescribed by the Act.