9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Collector (Appeals) against the order of the Assistant Collector. It was urged by the appellants (respondents herein) that the application was made to the Range Superintendent as per practice. The appeal was allowed by the Collector (Appeals). He held that the application for refund was addressed to the Assistant Collector; Superintendent (Central Excise Range) being a subordinate officer to the Assistant Collector, could as well be deemed to be a part of his office. There was a great force in the plea of the appellants (now respondent in this application) that the Superintendent should have acted according to the strict law, if there had been a change in law. The present appeal is against the said order of the Collector (Appeals). 3. During the hearing before us, Smt. J.K. Chander, learned J.D.R. argued for the appellants and Shri Bipin Garg, learned advocate argued for the respondents. Smt. Chander stated that Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules was amended by Notification No. 267/77-C.E. dated 6-8-1977. According to the amended Rule 11, refund claim was required to be filed before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aswani v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta. iv) 1986 (23) E.L.T. 174 (Tribunal) Peria Karamala Tea and Produce Co. Ltd., Coimbatore v. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore. 5. We have considered the arguments of both sides, we have also carefully gone through the case records. 6. In the case of Shri Ambika Khandsari Udyog, Saharanpur, duty was paid during the period from 4-2-1978 to 25-2-1978. Refund claim was submitted to the Superintendent of Central Excise on 31-7-1978 i.e. within the statutory period of six months. The Superintendent accepted the application and forwarded to the Assistant Collector, who received it on 26-8-1978, i.e. after expiry of the statutory time-limit. This Tribunal relied upon the Trade Notice No. 206/80 issued by Kanpur Central Excise Collectorate and made the following observation in paragraph 7 of its order : In the absence of anything to the contrary, we can reasonably infer from this Trade Notice that, at least in 1978, the practice was that refund claims could be presented to the Superintendent. This inference is re-inforced from the fact that Superintendent did entertain a refund claim by the appellants and passed it on to the Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reversed by another decision of the Tribunal that the appeal in such cases lay with the Tribunal. On receiving back the appeal from the Collector (Appeals), the appellant filed the appeal with the Tribunal immediately on the next day. It was held by the Tribunal that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal before the Tribunal in time and the delay was, therefore, condoned. 9. In the case of Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd., Coimbatore v. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore [1986 (23) E.L.T. 174 (Tribunal)], the refund claim related to the period from 25-3-1978 to 31-13-1978. The claim was presented to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise on 13-9-1978. It was entertained by him and, after necessary verification at his end, he forwarded the same to the Assistant Collector, the sanctioning authority, on 27-9-1978. By its order, dated 21-1-1985 the Tribunal held in that case that time-limit should be computed from the date of submission of the claim to the Superintendent, i.e. 13-9-1978. 10. In its order reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 281 in the case of Shri Ambica Khandsari Udyog, Saharanpur v. Collector of Central Excise, Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing refund claims before the RO/S.O. and not the Assistant Collector." We have perused the copies of Trade Notices submitted by the learned J.D.R. We find from the Trade Notice No. 162/77, dated 17-8-1977 that the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur circulated copy of Government of India Notification No. 267/77-C.E., dated 6th August, 1977. By this Notification Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was amended. Sub-Rule (1) of this Rule, as amended, reads as follows :- Any person claiming refund of any duty paid by him may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty. Trade Notice No. 77/1979, dated 25-4-1979 was issued by the Collectorate inviting attention to the Trade Notice No. 162/77, dated 17-8-1977 under which copy of Notification No. 267/77, dated 6-8-1977 was circulated. In the Trade Notice, dated 25-4-1979, it was emphasised that the refund applications under amended Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules were to be made to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction over the assessee. It was made very clear therein that limitation period would be calculated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... practice in Kanpur Collectorate during the year 1977, when the impugned refund claim was filed in the present case. There is also no material before us to show that there were similar other claims in 1977. The Notification No.267/77-C.E., dated 6-8-1977 was duly circulated by the Collectorate on 17-8-1977 and hence there could be no justification for filing refund claim before the Superintendent during the month of December, 1977. Learned Departmental Representative has made a submission in the court before us that there was no such practice during the relevant period. Her submission is supported by a written letter of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. In the absence of any specific materials to the contrary the submission made by the learned Departmental Representative on facts is to be accepted as correct. In this view of the matter, we are convinced that there was no established practice in the Kanpur Collectorate during 1977 for receiving the refund claims by the Superintendent of Central Excise on behalf of the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The claim submitted by the appellants in the present case before the Superintendent is to be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actice prevailing during the relevant period, failing which to go by the statutory period, computed from the date of filing of the claim before the appropriate Assistant Collector of Central Excise under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules/Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In the present case before us, we have earlier concluded that there was no such practice during the relevant period in the Collectorate of Central Excise, Kanpur. The matter is, therefore, to be decided according to the provisions of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 12. Rule 11 specifically provides that refund claim should be filed before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise within six months from the date of payment of duty. The provision of this rule should be interpreted strictly. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Polstar and Co. Ltd. v. Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax," New Delhi (AIR-1978-SC-897) it was held by this Tribunal in Southern Petro-chemical Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras (cited supra) that a statutory enactment must ordinarily be construed according to the plain natural meaning of its language and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
