Refund claim through Superintendent accepted as valid presentation to proper authority; technical time-bar rejection failed on natural justice grounds.

A refund application addressed to the Assistant Collector and filed through the jurisdictional Superintendent was treated as a valid presentation to the proper authority where departmental practice and a contemporaneous trade notice showed that such filings were being accepted through that channel. On that basis, the claim was not rejected as time-barred on a purely technical view. Rejection without notice was also inconsistent with natural justice because the assessee was denied an opportunity to explain the prevailing practice. The refund claim was therefore to be processed, subject to duty being otherwise payable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim addressed to the Assistant Collector but filed through the jurisdictional Superintendent could be treated as a valid presentation to the proper authority under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether rejection of the claim as time-barred without notice was sustainable.

Analysis: Rule 11 required that a refund application be made to the Assistant Collector, but the manner of presentation was treated as satisfied when the application was addressed to the Assistant Collector and submitted through the Superintendent, who formed part of the Assistant Collector's establishment and forwarded it to the proper office. The existence of a contemporaneous trade notice indicated that, at the relevant time, refund applications were being accepted through the Superintendent, supporting the inference of an accepted departmental practice. On that footing, the presentation through the Superintendent was held to amount to making the application to the Assistant Collector. The rejection without notice was also found inconsistent with natural justice because the appellants were deprived of an opportunity to explain the prevailing practice.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by time and its rejection was ; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the refund claim was directed to be processed as consequential relief if the duty was otherwise payable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund application is addressed to the proper authority and is received through an authorised departmental office in accordance with an established practice, such presentation satisfies the requirement of making the application to the proper authority, and the claim cannot be rejected as time-barred on a purely technical ground.

---