1985 (4) TMI 201 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim under Exemption Notification No. 198/76-C.E.
2. Time bar under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Entitlement to refund without disputing the classification list.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the respondent's refund claim under Exemption Notification No. 198/76-C.E. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim, but the Appellate Collector allowed it. The Department appealed, arguing that the claim was time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal considered the prescribed procedure under the notification, where an assessee could only avail of the exemption after submitting a declaration of base year clearances approved by the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal referred to previous cases and held that the limitation under Rule 11 should be considered to have stopped running when the assessee applied for the exemption by submitting the prescribed declaration. The Tribunal cited relevant cases to support this interpretation.

2. The respondents' claim related to a period between 14-7-1976 to 5-2-1977. Their declaration was submitted for approval on 19-5-1977, within the one-year time limit prescribed by Rule 11. Despite discrepancies in dates, the Tribunal held that the claim was not time-barred based on the earlier decisions and the submission date of the declaration. The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument regarding the time limit, emphasizing the assessee's compliance with the prescribed procedure within the stipulated period.

3. The Department contended that the respondents were not entitled to the refund as they had not disputed the classification list, citing a relevant case. However, the Tribunal noted that the scheme's mechanics required the submission and approval of the base year declaration, not the classification list itself. The respondents followed this procedure within the prescribed time limit, as determined in previous paragraphs. Therefore, the Department's argument regarding the classification list dispute was deemed unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal based on the discussions and findings presented in the judgment.