1986 (10) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt of Central Excise, Tirunelveli. This was rejected by the Assistant Collector under order dated 17-7-1980 on the ground that the refund claim was received in the Assistant Collector s office on 10-4-1980, after the expiry of the period prescribed under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. On appeal this order was upheld by the Appellate Collector under order dated 2-3-1981. The appellants preferred a revision petition to the Central Government which, on transfer, is now before us as this deemed appeal. 2. We have heard Shri Harish Salve, Advocate for the appellant and Shri A.K. Rajhans, JDR for the Department. 3. Shri Salve claims that the existing practice in the Collectorate was that refund claims, though addressed to the Assistant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ectorate a reasonable inference could be made that earlier there must have been a practice under which applications for refund were being presented to the Superintendent who used to process the same and submit it to the Assistant Collector. Based on the said conclusion the Tribunal held that it would be the date of presentation in the office of the Superintendent that would be the date of refund claim. This decision was referred to and followed in the Peria Karamalai Tea Produce Co. case. Shri Salve therefore, submits that in the present instance also it may be seen from the endorsement of the Superintendent dated 13-6-1979 in the refund claim of the said date that we must accept that there was such a procedure prevalent in the Madurai Co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ubmitted the same later to the Assistant Collector after processing the refund claim, that would be the date of presentation to the Superintendent (of the refund claim addressed to the Assistant Collector) that would be the date of making the refund claim. In the absence of any information as to the existence of such a procedure in the Madurai Collectorate during the relevant period we are not in a position to come to any conclusion on this question so as to apply the principles laid down in the decisions relied on by Shri Salve. We are satisfied that the order of the lower authorities cannot be supported since that had not gone into the question of prevalent practice. In the circumstances it has become necessary to have this matter gone in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X