Strict refund limitation rule requires filing before the competent authority; filing with another officer did not preserve time.

An amended refund limitation rule required applications to be made to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise within six months of duty payment. Filing the claim with the Range Superintendent did not satisfy the requirement where there was no proved collectorate practice treating such receipt as filing before the competent authority. Trade notices stated that filing before the Sector Officer or Range Officer was not regular and that limitation ran from receipt by the Assistant Collector. In the absence of an established practice, the statutory filing requirement had to be applied strictly, and no relaxation of the prescribed limitation was available for the refund claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim addressed to the Assistant Collector but filed with the Range Superintendent could be treated as validly filed within time under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in the absence of an established practice in the Collectorate.

Analysis: The amended Rule 11 required a refund application to be made to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise within six months from the date of payment of duty. The record showed that, unlike in cases where an established local practice was proved, there was no material to establish that during the relevant period in the Kanpur Collectorate refund claims were regularly received by the Superintendent on behalf of the Assistant Collector. The trade notices issued after the amendment stated that filing before the Sector Officer or Range Officer was not regular and that limitation would be computed from receipt by the Assistant Collector. In the absence of a proved practice, the statutory language had to be applied strictly, and there was no power to relax the prescribed limitation for a refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred because it was not filed before the Assistant Collector within the prescribed period, and filing it before the Superintendent did not save limitation.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal succeeded, and the order allowing the refund claim was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the refund statute expressly requires presentation of the claim to the specified authority within a fixed period, limitation must be computed strictly from compliance with that requirement unless an established and proved practice justifies treating filing before another officer as filing before the competent authority.

---