1985 (6) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Central Excise, Mettur Range II referring to the operational problems faced in their furnaces and requested a month s time to reprocess and return the materials received to M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works, M/s. Gounder and Co. and M/s. Kunal Engineering out of the four parties involved from whom goods have been received. In the letter dated 19-6-1981 to the Superintendent, they asked for extension of time by another month to reprocess and return the materials to M/s. Kunal Engineering, Madras and M/s. Breakes India Limited, Madras. On 1-7-1981 they wrote to the Superintendent that the extrusions under D.3 Nos. 8 and 16 are kept ready for despatch and asked for permission to return the above materials to their customers. In the letter dated 14-7 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ods are returned to the factory for reprocessing - a situation excepted by sub-section (4) of Section 11B. Hence, the time bar referred to under Section 11B will not be applicable and the lack of the application within six months from the date of return of the goods to the factory is not relevant, as the refund has to be made by the department on its own. 3. SDR, on the other hand, referred to Section 11B(1) which provides that when any person claiming refund of duty should make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the relevant date. In Explanation to the Section relevant date has been clarified. Explanation B(b) reads :- In the case of goods return .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ry while defining the relevant date . In fact, the wording of Explanation B(b) is almost identical with the latter part of the wording of Rule 173L(1). Thus, one has to hold that in a situation like the present one is indeed covered by the provisions of Section 11B. The formal claim for refund was received by the Assistant Collector only after the expiry of six months from the date of return of the goods. I have also considered if the letter dated 14-7-1981 could be considered as a claim for refund in respect of the four D.3s referred to therein. I am afraid it cannot be so considered for two reasons for one thing : (a) it ends by saying that the claim for refund would be filed later; for another (b) it is addressed to the Superinten .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X