Refund under special excise notification upheld despite procedural lapse where RT-12 returns showed substantial compliance.

Refund claims under Notification No. 33/99-CE were treated as admissible because the notification-specific scheme was applied and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held not to bar the claims on limitation. Although clause 2(a) required monthly filing of duty-paid statements, the assessee had regularly filed RT-12 returns disclosing duty paid from account current, which amounted to substantial compliance. The Tribunal held that a purely procedural lapse could not defeat refund entitlement where the substantive conditions under the notification were satisfied, and distinguished the Revenue's relied-on precedent on facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claims filed under Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 could be rejected for non-compliance with the statement-filing requirement in condition 2(a), and whether Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied so as to bar the claims on limitation.

Analysis: The refund claims were made under the special notification, and the applicable departmental clarification indicated that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not attracted. The condition in clause 2(a) required monthly filing of duty-paid statements, but the record showed that the appellant had regularly filed RT-12 returns disclosing the duty paid from account current. The earlier decision relied upon by the Revenue was distinguished on facts, and the Tribunal treated the notification requirement as having been substantially complied with. The Tribunal further held that the refund could not be denied on a purely procedural lapse when the substantive eligibility conditions stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The refund claims were held to be admissible and could not be rejected on limitation or procedural non-compliance under clause 2(a) of Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999.

---