9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (6) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... together for the purpose of passing a common order. 2. Shri Pattekar on behalf of the appellant, the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda has explained the facts of the case and argued that the Order dated 4-11-1982 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay requires to be set aside because the relief granted by him for refund of duty is not admissible, as the claims for refund filed by M/s. Power Build Ltd. with the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Anand are hit by the time bar under Section 11-B of the Central Excises Salt Act. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Anand in his Order No. V/18-60/MP/80, dated 16-5-1981 rejected the claims for refund on the ground that M/s. Power Build Ltd. did not follow the prescribed procedure under Rules 174-H and 173-L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Asstt. Collector did not go into the question that except for the duty paid on 26-6-1980 the payment of duties made on earlier dates were barred by limitation and hence the refund under Section 11-B was not permitted. Possibly for this reason, the Collector (Appeals) also did not go into this question while passing his Order dated 4-11-1982. This order has, therefore, beco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law. Similarly, Shri Khosala read out various judicial pronouncements as mentioned in the memo of cross objection to show that the time bar under Section 11-B was not applicable to the refund claimed by M/s. Power Build Ltd. The authorities were cited mainly to buttress the respondent s arguments that the duty was not legally recoverable as the process carried out by the respondent did not amount to the manufacture of a new commodity. Quoting the judicial pronouncements Shri Khosala argued that the respondent made the claim for refund not under Section 11-B. They approached the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Anand in his capacity as an Administrative Officer to give them the refund of duties which were not recoverable under the Central Excises and Salt Act. Since the duties were not paid under the Central Excises and Salt Act, the time bar under Section 11-B was not applicable. Shri Khosala further argued that the Government of India in the Revision Application under old Section 36 had accepted this interpretation of the law and he had referred to the Government s decision in the memo of Cross Objection. Therefore, even on the basis of the Government s decision, the refund was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excises and Salt Act and the Central Excise Rules, and there was clear violation on their part of Rules 51-A, 173-H and 173-L. It was, therefore, not necessary for the Asstt. Collector to go into all the grounds of the claim before rejecting it on some grounds. The respondents had paid duty on their own and the department had not demanded duty from them and the respondents cannot now go back on the payment. The statement of M/s. Power Build Ltd. in Para 5 on Page 5 of the memo of cross objection challenged the inherent powers of the Tribunal. Rule 10 of the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate (Procedure) Rules, 1982 is quite clear in the matter that the Tribunal could base its decision on grounds which might not be urged in the appeal. Since the claim was clearly time barred, he requested that the Appeal on behalf of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda be allowed. 5. Shri Khosala for the respondents has pursued his arguments in the Cross Objection. He has drawn our attention to his article published in Excise Law Times, May 1983 in which he has dealt with the question of time bar and its endorsement by the Tribunal. He has repeated his contention that the claim o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Madras Rubber Co. A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 638 = 1983 E.L.T. 1579 as pointed out by the learned departmental representative. Hence, it is inevitable for us to follow the ratio of the Supreme Court s decision in this case rather than the ratio of different judicial and quasi-judicial pronouncements relied upon by the respondents. This decision of the Supreme Court leaves, no doubt that the time bar under the departmental law is applicable. The half hearted arguments of the learned representative of the respondents to draw distinction between the facts of the present case and those decided by the Tribunal coming within the time limits under the Customs Act or the Central Excise Act are also not acceptable. It is seen that in the present case the respondents have paid duty under the Head II Union Excise Duties . They have also approached the departmental authorities viz. the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Anand for refund of sums paid, as duty. They have further used the form prescribed by the Central Excise department for refund of duty. In view of the forgoing factors, the respondents efforts to get out of the purview of the Central Excise law at this stage by stating tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
