1985 (2) TMI 256 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Allows Appeal Overturning Time-Barred Refund Claim Decision

GEORGE WILLIAMSON (ASSAM) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order rejecting the refund claim as time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The ... - Issues:Refund claim rejection based on time-bar under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.Analysis:The appellants' refund claim of Rs. 46,413.57 under the exemption Notification No. 198/76-Central Excises was rejected by lower authorities as time-barred under Rule 11. The claim pertained to the period from 3-4-76 to 31-3-77, submitted on 19-4-78, beyond the six-month limit. The appellants argued they submitted the declaration for approval of base year and base year clearance within the one-year time limit under Rule 11 and Rule 173-J. The Department contended the previous Tribunal orders were distinguishable as the appellants filed after excess clearances, unlike previous cases. The Department argued the scheme required availing the concessional rate on the clearance date. However, no stipulation in the notification supported this argument.The exact period of claim was between 1-7-76 and 31-3-77. The Tribunal found the limitation stopped running on 17-5-77 when the appellants submitted their declaration. The subsequent quantification of refund after approval was deemed immaterial for the limitation of Rule 11. The Department's distinction between previous cases and the present one was deemed immaterial regarding the limitation issue. The Tribunal found no stipulation in the notification requiring immediate availing of the concession on clearance date.Regarding the Department's new plea that the claim was not due to error or inadvertence under Rule 11, the Tribunal held the appellants' delay could be attributed to ignorance or error of judgment, falling within the wide scope of 'inadvertence' and 'error' in Rule 11. Both the Asst. Collector and the Appellate Collector also considered the claim under Rule 11. The Tribunal rejected the Department's plea for the appellants to file a civil suit for the refund claim. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order, directing the Assistant Collector to process the refund claim as not time-barred under Rule 11.