Mandatory refund claim timing under exemption notification bars delayed claims where monthly statement lacks an express refund request.

Refund claims under Notification No. 33/99-CE had to be supported by the monthly statement contemplated by clause 2(a), filed within the notification's prescribed monthly timetable and containing an express refund claim. The Tribunal held that the statement could be in the prescribed form or an RT-12 return, but it had to disclose the claim; the returns here did not do so. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held inapplicable because the notification itself fixed specific time limits. Claims lodged five to six years later were not made within a reasonable time and were therefore inadmissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund claims under Notification No. 33/99-CE, filed more than five years after payment of duty and without a timely statement under clause 2(a), were admissible where the units claimed substantial expansion under clause 3(b).

Analysis: The notification required the manufacturer to submit a monthly statement by the 7th of the next month, followed by verification and refund by the 15th of the next month. The Tribunal held that clause 2(a) could not be read in isolation and that the statement, whether in the form prescribed under the notification or as an RT-12 return, had to contain a claim for refund. In the present matters, the RT-12 returns did not contain such a claim, unlike the cases relied upon by the assessees. The Tribunal further held that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not applicable because the notification itself prescribed specific monthly time limits. While a beneficial notification may receive liberal interpretation, a mandatory condition for claiming refund within the prescribed monthly framework could not be ignored. Refund claims made after five to six years were therefore not within a reasonable time and could not be treated as valid claims under the notification.

Conclusion: The refund claims were time barred and inadmissible. The Revenue appeals were allowed and the appeal of the assessee was rejected.

---