Refund application in substance can save limitation even if filed before the wrong excise officer

A refund claim under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 may be valid where a letter clearly asserts entitlement to duty relief and specifies the clearances for which refund is sought, even if it is copied to the Assistant Collector rather than addressed to the jurisdictional officer. The communication can be treated in substance as a refund application, and filing before an officer lacking territorial jurisdiction does not automatically render it void or non est. On that basis, the refund claim was not time-barred under Rule 11 and rejection of the claim was not legally sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's letter dated 20-6-1978, copied to the Assistant Collector, constituted a valid application for refund under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, so as to save the refund claim from being rejected as time-barred.

Analysis: The appellant had, by the letter, clearly asserted entitlement to duty relief under Notification No. 198/76 and claimed refund in respect of specified clearances. A copy of the letter was sent to the Assistant Collector, and the communication was treated in substance as a refund application. The fact that the communication may not have been addressed to the proper jurisdictional officer did not render it void ab initio or non est, because a filing before an officer lacking territorial jurisdiction is not automatically ineffective in law. On that basis, the claim satisfied the requirement of an application for refund under Rule 11.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred under Rule 11, and the rejection of the claim was not legally sustainable.

---