Pro rata excise exemption and refund limitation under self-removal procedure turn on proof of duty-paid input and payment date.

Under the self-removal procedure, duty payment was treated as complete when the classification and price lists were approved and duty was paid on that basis; later verification of RT-12 returns was only arithmetical and did not make the payment provisional, so limitation for refund under Section 11B ran from the date of payment in the PLA. Refund relief was therefore confined to claims within six months of payment. The concessional rate under Notification No. 7/80-C.E. was available on a pro rata basis for nylon moulding powder manufactured from mixed imported and indigenous raw materials, provided the assessee proved to the Assistant Collector the quantity attributable to the indigenous duty-paid input.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to the concessional rate under Notification No. 7/80-C.E. on a pro rata basis where nylon moulding powder was manufactured from both imported and indigenous raw material; (ii) Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to the concessional rate under Notification No. 7/80-C.E. on a pro rata basis where nylon moulding powder was manufactured from both imported and indigenous raw material.

Analysis: The notification extended concessional duty where the input was raw naphtha or a chemical derived therefrom on which appropriate excise duty had already been paid. The manufacture involved a mixture of imported and indigenous inputs, and the Tribunal applied its earlier view that exemption could not be denied merely because some non-qualifying material had also been used. The proper course was to grant the benefit proportionately, provided the assessee established to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector that the relevant quantity of finished goods was attributable to the indigenous duty-paid input.

Conclusion: The concessional benefit was admissible on a pro rata basis, subject to proof of the indigenous duty-paid component.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: Under Section 11B, the relevant date is the date of payment of duty unless the case falls within the category of provisional assessment. The Tribunal held that, under the self-removal procedure, assessment is complete when the classification list and price list are approved and the assessee pays duty on that basis; the later checking of RT-12 returns is only an arithmetical verification and does not make the payment provisional. Accordingly, the six-month period had to run from the date of payment in the PLA, not from finalisation of RT-12 returns.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred to the extent it related to payments made beyond six months before the date of the refund application.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on merits, but the refund relief was confined to the amount within the statutory limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the self-removal procedure, duty payment is not provisional merely because RT-12 returns are later verified; for refund claims under Section 11B, limitation runs from the date of payment of duty, while concessional exemption based on qualifying indigenous input may be granted proportionately on satisfactory proof.

---