Suo motu refund under exemption notification survives delayed statements; separate Section 11B application not required.

A refund notification granting relief to eligible assessees in a specified area was treated as operating on a suo motu basis, so a separate refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not required. Delay in the department's receipt of duty payment statements did not by itself defeat the refund entitlement where the statements had already been furnished to the superintendent. The key consideration was eligibility under the notification, not the timing of internal departmental processing, and belated receipt by the Assistant Commissioner's office could not extinguish the benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in submitting duty payment statements could justify denial of refund under Notification No. 33/99, and whether a refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was required.

Analysis: The notification contemplated refund to eligible assessees in the specified area to be granted by the Revenue on its own initiative, and not on the basis of a refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decisive factor was the entitlement under the notification, and the belated receipt of particulars in the office of the Assistant Commissioner could not defeat that entitlement when the duty payment statements had already been submitted to the superintendent.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the statements did not disentitle the assessee from the refund benefit, and the revenue appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund notification provides for suo motu grant of refund and does not require a refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, delay in furnishing supporting statements to the department does not by itself justify denial of the refund.

---