9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents in the present proceedings) before the Superintendent on 21-6-1978 and 5-6-1979 in respect of excess clearances effected from 24-2-1978 and 23-1-1979 respectively cannot be held to be time-barred. He also directed the Assistant Collector to decide the case afresh. The present appeal before us is against this part of the order. 2. In the appeal, the Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur has pointed out that the position as to the filing of refund claim for refund of duty of excise to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector is mandatory. He has relied upon the decision of the East Regional Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, W.B. Calcutta, reported vide 1984 (16) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plying to the arguments of the learned SDR, Shri N. Mookherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, Steel Authority of India Limited strongly opposed the contentions raised in the appeal. He submitted that the refund claims were addressed to the Assistant Collector only but as per the practice followed not only by them but allowed by the department, it was filed before the Superintendent. The Superintendent scrutinised their claim and entered into correspondence with them in the matter. He relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal reported vide (1) 1989 (43) E.L.T. 325; (2) 1989 (43) E.L.T. 339; and (3) 1989 (43) E.L.T. 421. He submitted that in terms of these subsequent decisions of the Tribunal the filing of the refund claim ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been received by him on behalf of the Assistant Collector if he took action on the refund application. In the decision dated 28-6-1985 reported vide 1989 (43) E.L.T. 424 (Tribunal), the Special Bench 'C' of the Tribunal had held that a refund claim filed before authority not having territorial jurisdiction is not ab initio void or non est factum. In the third case vide 1989 (43) E.L.T. 339 (decided on 27-3-1989) the East Regional Bench itself had held that the Superintendent having retained the documents and scrutinised them as in the past would amount to continuation of the past practice of filing refund claim to Assistant Collector through Superintendent. In this decision there is a reference to an earlier decision of the Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
