1988 (6) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case for refund review. Assistant Collector must follow prior order. Expedited resolution urged.

HIMACHAL STEEL KANDRORI Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower authorities' orders and remanding the case to the Assistant Collector to reexamine the refund ... Two Collectors (Appeals) cannot take different view in the same case Issues:1. Rejection of part of refund claim2. Jurisdiction of Assistant Collector to reopen the issue of time-bar3. Interpretation of earlier Order by Collector (Appeals)Analysis:Issue 1: Rejection of part of refund claimThe appellants filed a refund claim for Rs. 37,907.90 due to a classification error under Trade Notice No. 34/78. The Assistant Collector initially sanctioned Rs. 10,985.53 but later demanded Rs. 1518.58 due to an alleged excess payment. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the claim within time, directing the Assistant Collector to reexamine the claim on merits. However, the Assistant Collector, instead of processing the claim, issued a show cause notice on the issue of limitation. The subsequent rejection of the claim by the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) was challenged in the present appeal.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Assistant Collector to reopen the issue of time-barThe appellants argued that the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to revisit the time-bar issue after the Collector (Appeals) had explicitly held the claim as within time. Citing relevant case law, the appellants contended that the Order of the Collector (Appeals) became final and binding as no appeal was filed against it by the department. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the Assistant Collector was bound by the earlier Order and lacked the authority to reconsider the time-bar issue.Issue 3: Interpretation of earlier Order by Collector (Appeals)The Tribunal analyzed the Order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 18.11.1982, which directed the Assistant Collector to examine the claim on merits after explicitly stating that the claim was within time. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Collector misinterpreted the Order by focusing solely on examining the claim on merits and disregarding the time-bar issue. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assistant Collector was obligated to adhere to the findings of the Collector (Appeals) and not reopen settled issues. The subsequent Order of the Collector (Appeals) upholding the rejection of the claim was deemed erroneous as it failed to consider the earlier binding Order.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanding the case to the Assistant Collector to reexamine the claim in accordance with the original remand order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 18.11.1982, emphasizing the need for expedited resolution due to the age of the case.