1990 (12) TMI 210 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim not time-barred under Central Excise Rules; Proper procedure followed; Assistant Collector to review.

ROHIT PULP & PAPER MILLS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX.

ROHIT PULP & PAPER MILLS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX. - 1991 (53) E.L.T. 440 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Whether the refund claim for excess production incentive is time-barred under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules.2. Whether the refund application addressed to the Assistant Collector, but submitted through the Range Superintendent, should be considered timely filed.3. Interpretation of the legal position regarding the submission of refund claims to the Assistant Collector.Analysis:1. The appellants sought a refund of duty under Notification 198/76 for higher production, which grants duty relief. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim as time-barred under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, stating it was received after six months. The appellants argued that they followed the prevailing practice of submitting refund claims through the Range Superintendent, citing previous similar claims. The Tribunal had previously held in Pariakaramalai Tea & Produce Co. case that such claims should be considered timely. The appellants also relied on the Super Tyres case, where it was held that limitation should be counted from the date of receipt by the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal found merit in these arguments and held the claim was not time-barred.2. The Respondent contended that the show cause notice and Trade Notice 32/72 mandated filing refund applications directly before the Assistant Collector. They argued that the practice of submitting claims through the Superintendent was not acceptable unless it was a recognized practice in the Collectorate. Referring to the G. Jerambhai Exports case, the Respondent emphasized the importance of following established procedures. However, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions, noted that the issue of whether the claim should be made directly to the Assistant Collector or submitted through the Superintendent had been addressed by the Kerala High Court. The High Court's ruling in the Talayar Tea Co. case supported the practice of submitting through the Superintendent, as long as the claim was ultimately addressed to the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation and set aside the time-barred decision.3. The Tribunal concurred with the High Court's judgment that the claim for refund should be made to the Assistant Collector, not necessarily presented directly before the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of prior practice and the lack of objections from the Range Office in accepting the claim. The Tribunal emphasized that as long as the claim was addressed to the Assistant Collector and followed established procedures, it should not be deemed time-barred. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assistant Collector to consider the refund claim on its merits and hear the appellants in accordance with the law.