9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 4-2-1987. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants used RBO in Vanaspathi and rebate was taken on quantity of RBO used. The appellants carry on business of manufacturing of Vanaspathi in their factory at Alipur, Calcutta. It is the case of the appellants that in terms of Notification No. 259/83, dated 15-10-1983 the Department allowed availment of rebate on the whole of Vanaspathi cleared. But the appellants availed rebate on the quantity of RBO used in the manufacture of Vanaspathi for the period from 15-10-1983 to 5-3-1984. It is the case of the appellant that they were entitled to avail of the rebate on the whole quantity of Vanaspathi cleared from the factory in respect of RBO used in the manufacture of said Vanaspathi. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority of law, statutory time limit is not applicable. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions :- (1) 1981 (8) E..L.T. 194 - Madras Fertilisers Ltd. v. Asstt. Collr. of C. Excise; (2) 1987 (27) E.L.T. 222 - Rapidex India Ltd. v. Union of India and Others; (3) 1987 (27) E.L.T. 408 - Hyderabad Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others; (4) 1987 (29) E.L.T. 3 - Autometers Ltd. and Another v. Union of India; and (5) 1990 (46) E.L.T. 543 - Balaji Fasteners v. Collector of Central Excise. Learned Departmental Representative Shri. A Choudhury contended before us that the Tribunal being creature of the statute is bound of the time limit prescribed under the Act. In support of his contention, he reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gality in rejecting the claim on the ground that the same is barred by Section 27(1) of the Customs Act. It was held in that decision that the Customs authorities created under the statute are bound by the limitation prescribed under the statute. 6. The decision relied on by the learned advocate in the case of Balaji Fasteners is also not applicable to the facts of this case. In that case at para Nos. 57, 60 and 61, the Tribunal held as follows :- "To sum up, the present case merely boils down to a question of implementation of the initial order of the Assistant Collector approving the classification list allowing benefit of exemption Notification No. 83/83. Since the amount in question was inadvertently paid in excess of the amount asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants in this case. 7. In view of the above reasonings, I am of the view that there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 16-9-1992 (T.P. Nambiar) Member (J) 8. [Assent per : K. Sankararaman, Member (T)]. - While I agree with my learned Brother that the appeal merits rejection as the original refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, I would like to give my reasons as below. 9. It was argued by Shri Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellants that the Superintendent was bound to assess the RT-12 Return in terms of Rule 173-I and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m in the RT-12 return was not completed by the Superintendent by calculating the correct amount of Rice Bran oil, Rebate due to them and consequently, the correct amount of duty payable by them. The appellants also had made a mistake in not applying the rebate on the entire quantity of vegetable oil manufactured with Rice Bran Oil but applied the rate of Rebate only on the quantity of the Rice Bran Oil itself. But if they committed the said error, so did the Superintendent and did not correct the same. The mistake being common to both and the assessment completed resulting in excess payment and levy, the only remedy open in the matter was to claim refund in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Without filing such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 12A : Rebate of duty on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported; (iv) Rule 173-L: Refund of duty on goods returned to factory. These are in addition to the procedure under Rule 173-I for completion of assessment memos and results flowing therefrom. The effect of the Saving Clause is that subject to the Saving Provisions, refund claims can be filed only in terms of the specific provisions therefor. The existence of a procedure under Rule 173-I does not, however, mean that if the same was not followed at the appropriate time, it should be followed retrospectively, to the exclusion of Section 11B laying down the requirements of a refund claim. The paramountcy of the said Section in regulating Refund Claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
