1986 (10) TMI 201 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case for fresh adjudication, sets clear deadline for refund claim review.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the lower authorities' orders, and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for fresh adjudication. The ... Refund claim Issues:Refund claim rejection based on time limitation under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules.Analysis:The case involved a refund claim rejection by the Assistant Collector on the grounds of exceeding the prescribed time limit under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants, manufacturers of branded biris, submitted a refund claim dated 13-6-1979, which was received by the Assistant Collector on 10-4-1980, after the expiration of the stipulated period. The rejection was upheld by the Appellate Collector, leading to a revision petition before the Central Government, now transferred to the Tribunal as a deemed appeal.The main contention raised by the appellant's counsel was regarding the practice in the Collectorate where refund claims addressed to the Assistant Collector were first presented to the jurisdictional Superintendent for processing before reaching the Assistant Collector for a decision. The appellant argued that the date of submission to the Superintendent should be considered as the date of presenting the refund claim to the Assistant Collector, thus challenging the rejection based on time limitation. The appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support this argument.In response, the Department's representative contended that the actual date of the refund claim reaching the Assistant Collector's office should be considered as the date of submission, justifying the rejection based on time limitation. The Department cited a recent Tribunal order to support this position.The Tribunal referred to previous cases where it was established that if a practice existed where refund claims were first presented to the Superintendent for processing before reaching the Assistant Collector, then the date of submission to the Superintendent would be considered as the date of presenting the claim to the Assistant Collector. However, in the absence of clear evidence regarding the practice in the Madurai Collectorate during the relevant period, the Tribunal could not conclusively determine the date of presenting the refund claim. As a result, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities' orders were not adequately supported due to the lack of discussion on the prevalent practice.Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the lower authorities' orders, and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for fresh adjudication. The Assistant Collector was directed to review the refund claim in light of the discussion and principles from previous Tribunal decisions mentioned in the case. Additionally, a deadline of three months was set for the Assistant Collector to resolve the matter due to the age of the refund claim.