Refund limitation and departmental practice: claim filed through a subordinate officer was treated as valid, defeating reference on law.

Departmental practice and trade instructions under Rule 233 were treated as relevant to refund limitation where a refund claim was lodged with a Range Officer or Sector Officer but addressed to the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal noted that claims so accepted on behalf of the Assistant Collector were treated as valid for limitation purposes, and distinguished the Supreme Court authority relied on because it did not concern the mode of presenting a refund claim. On that basis, it held that no question of law fit for reference arose and rejected the reference application.

---

---

Issues: Whether a question of law arose from the Tribunal's order on computation of limitation for a refund claim filed with a Range Officer but addressed to the Assistant Collector, and whether the reference application was maintainable.

Analysis: The order proceeded on the basis that the relevant refund claim was filed after the amendment of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requiring filing before the Assistant Collector, but the prevailing practice and the department's own trade notices indicated that claims lodged with the Range Officer or Sector Officer and accepted on behalf of the Assistant Collector were treated as valid for limitation purposes. The order distinguished the Supreme Court decision on general limitation, as that case did not address the mode of presenting a refund claim for computing time. It also relied on the effect of beneficial administrative instructions issued under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Conclusion: No question of law fit for reference arose, and the reference application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed that, on the facts of the case, the refund claim could not generate a referable question of law and the matter stood concluded against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where departmental practice and binding trade instructions treat a refund claim lodged with a subordinate excise officer as lodged on behalf of the Assistant Collector, the limitation for refund cannot be denied merely because the claim was not physically received by the Assistant Collector.

---