1985 (11) TMI 123 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal grants refund claim based on timely submission, upholding Rule 11. Importance of adherence to time limits stressed.

PERIA KARAMALAI TEA AND PRODUCE CO. LTD., COIMBATORE Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE

PERIA KARAMALAI TEA AND PRODUCE CO. LTD., COIMBATORE Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 174 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of time bar of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Interpretation of the limitation period for claiming refund under Rule 11.3. Applicability of Rule 11 to the case and the availability of alternative remedies.Analysis:The appellants contested the rejection of their refund claim citing Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which imposed a time limit for claiming refunds. The dispute arose concerning an exemption Notification related to incentive rebate for higher production. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim as time-barred, considering the limitation from the date the excess duty was paid. However, the Appellate Collector allowed the claim for a specific period but rejected the rest based on the time limit stipulated by Rule 11.The appellants argued that the limitation period should start from the date their claim was received by the jurisdictional Superintendent, relying on a previous Tribunal order. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, allowing the claim for a further period within the time limit. The appellants also sought acceptance of the remaining claim on the grounds of no error on their part and the principle that the State should not retain money not due to it.Regarding the applicability of Rule 11, the Tribunal noted that the rule was amended to allow any person claiming a refund to apply within six months from the date of payment of duty. The delay in filing the claim was attributed to the appellants' negligence, and the plea of equity was deemed applicable to higher courts, not quasi-judicial Tribunals. The department contended that Rule 11 did not apply, suggesting a civil suit as the only remedy. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument, emphasizing that Rule 11 covered the appellants' case.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the claim for a specific period within the time limit, directing the refund of excess duty paid during that period. The decision clarified the entitlement of the appellants to the refund and rejected the appeal on other grounds. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for refund claims and the scope of Rule 11 in such matters.