1990 (9) TMI 106 - SC - Central Excise

Limitation for filing an application under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act for claim of Refund Held that - The clearance of goods made by the appellant between 1st April and 3rd of June, 1985 were in accordance with the procedure for provisional assessment. In such a situation clause (e) of para (B) of the Explanation under Section 11B will be attracted. In this case the RT-12 Return for the month of April, 1985 was filed on 8-5-1985 and the same was assessed on 29-10-1985. It is, therefore, only from the date of this assessment that time-bar in Section 11B will operate. In the present case the refund application had been filed on the 30th of October, 1985. It cannot, therefore, said to be time barred. In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Starting point of limitation for filing a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, against an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The appellant, a manufacturer of Hacksaw blades and Bandsaw Blades, mistakenly filed a classification list with an incorrect tariff rate, leading to the payment of excess excise duty. The issue arose when the refund claim was partly rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant contended that the starting point of limitation for filing a refund claim should be the date of assessment, not the date of payment of duty as held by the authorities.

The appellant's argument was based on the interpretation of Section 11B of the Act, which outlines the procedure for claiming a refund of excise duty. The appellant maintained that the date of assessment should be considered the date of payment of duty, contrary to the authorities' view. The Court agreed with the appellant's argument that the date of assessment should be the relevant date for filing a refund claim under Section 11B. The Court noted that the duty paid by way of debit in the personal ledger account was an effective payment, not merely an adjustment entry.

Furthermore, the Court delved into the procedural aspects of excise duty payment, specifically the self-removal procedure under Rule 173B. The Court highlighted the requirements for approval of classification and price lists by the Proper Officer before clearance of goods. The Court emphasized that clearances could only be made after the approval of the list by the Proper Officer, and in cases of delay, provisional assessment procedures could be followed. The Court concluded that in the appellant's case, the goods were cleared provisionally between the filing of the classification list and its approval, making the refund application timely and not time-barred.

In conclusion, the Court accepted the appellant's contention regarding the starting point of limitation for filing a refund claim under Section 11B, allowing the appeal and ruling in favor of the appellant. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to the full refund amount, and there was no limitation bar as determined by the Tribunal.