1998 (4) TMI 348 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the filing of refund claims.
- Whether a letter requesting condonation of delay constitutes a refund application.
- Tribunal's authority to condone delay beyond the specified period.

Analysis:
1. The Reference Application raised a question regarding the interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, specifically related to the filing of refund claims. The dispute centered around whether a letter dated 21-1-1993 requesting condonation of delay for filing registration papers should be considered a refund application as per Section 11B, or if the claim filed on 27-8-1993 should be treated as the refund application. Additionally, the Tribunal was asked to determine if it could go beyond Section 11B to condone such delay and consider an application filed after six months as within the time limit.

2. The Appellant argued that after the amendment of Section 11B in 1991, submitting the refund claim in the prescribed proforma became mandatory. The Appellant contended that only an application in the appropriate proforma should be treated as a refund application.

3. The Respondents, on the other hand, argued that the delay in submitting the refund claim was condoned on 19-8-1993, and the claim was subsequently filed on 27-8-1993. They referenced a notification that allowed the refund claim to be submitted only after the delay in submitting the required certificate was condoned. The Respondents cited a previous Tribunal decision and an Apex Court confirmation supporting their position that no question of law arose in the case.

4. Upon considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal noted that Section 11B required refund claims to be filed in the prescribed proforma after its amendment. The Tribunal examined the specific provisions of the notification related to the case, which allowed for the condonation of delay in submitting the required certificate for claiming a refund. The Tribunal also referenced previous decisions to support the position that the subsequent refund application filed by the Respondents was in continuation of the earlier declaration.

5. The Tribunal further reviewed a previous decision in the case of M/s. Precision Drilling Equipments and found that the facts in that case differed from the current scenario and the previous cases cited. After a thorough analysis of the facts and legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that no substantial point of law necessitated a reference to the High Court, leading to the rejection of the Reference Application.