1990 (3) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal upholds Steel Authority's refund claim, Collector's appeal dismissed.

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Calcutta dismissed the appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur, challenging the order deeming refund claims by the ... Refund claim - Limitation Issues:- Appeal against order holding refund claims not time-barred- Mandatory filing of refund claim before jurisdictional Assistant Collector- Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding filing of refund claims- Validity of filing refund claims before Superintendent instead of Assistant Collector- Precedents supporting filing of refund claims before SuperintendentAnalysis:1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Calcutta was lodged by the Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur challenging the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. The order in question pertained to refund claims submitted by the Steel Authority of India Ltd., Durgapur Steel Plant, which the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) deemed not time-barred. The Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur contended that the filing of refund claims before the jurisdictional Assistant Collector is mandatory, citing a previous decision by the East Regional Bench of the Tribunal. The Collector sought modification or annulment of the order, arguing that the Collector (Appeals) erred in allowing refund claims that were time-barred.2. During the hearing, the learned SDR representing the Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur, emphasized the requirement under Rule 11 that refund claims must be filed before the Assistant Collector. He argued that submitting the claim to the Superintendent does not fulfill the statutory provision of filing before the Assistant Collector. The SDR requested the Tribunal to set aside the order under appeal.3. In response, the counsel for the Steel Authority of India Ltd. argued that although the refund claims were addressed to the Assistant Collector, they were filed before the Superintendent, following a practice accepted by both the company and the department. The counsel relied on recent Tribunal decisions to support the argument that filing before the Superintendent should be considered as filing before the Assistant Collector for the purposes of compliance with the law. The counsel urged the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal and uphold the Collector (Appeals)'s directions regarding the refund claims.4. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and reviewed the cited decisions. The Tribunal noted that subsequent decisions, including those by the Special Bench 'C' of the Tribunal, supported the view that filing a claim before the Superintendent could be deemed as filing before the Assistant Collector if the Superintendent took action on the application. The Tribunal also referred to earlier decisions emphasizing that filing with an authority not having territorial jurisdiction is not necessarily void. Based on the weight of these precedents, the Tribunal rejected the Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur's stance.5. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed the jurisdictional Assistant Collector to implement the Collector (Appeals)'s order regarding the refund claims. The Tribunal instructed the Assistant Collector to provide the due benefits to the Steel Authority of India Ltd. within three months from the date of the Tribunal's order, considering the historical payment of duty and the passage of time since the Collector (Appeals)'s decision.