Tribunal remands case for refund claim reconsideration, citing justified delay & assessing officer's duties

AMA EXTRUSIONS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

AMA EXTRUSIONS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 546 (Tribunal) Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the CESA.
- Consideration of statutory requirements for filing refund claim.
- Interpretation of Rule 173(1) of the Central Excise Rules regarding excess payment credit.
- Duty of assessing officer in cases of excess payment and refund claims.

Analysis:

The appeal was brought against the rejection of a refund claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the CESA. The appellants filed a refund claim for duty paid during a specific period, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector citing the claim was filed beyond the prescribed six-month period. The appeal to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) also met rejection, leading to the current appeal. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants argued that they had initially notified the authorities about the excess duty payment and requested credit in the RT-12 Return, which was not acted upon. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim upon oral instructions from the Supdt. The Ld. Advocate contended that due to confusion post-1986 Budget changes, the delay in notification receipt, and the lack of response from the authorities, the refund claim should not be time-barred.

On the other hand, the Ld. SDR argued that the regular refund claim was filed beyond the stipulated time, emphasizing the statutory requirement to file such claims before the Assistant Collector. The SDR supported the rejection of the claim as time-barred, asserting that statutory limitations must be adhered to by the authorities. After reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the appellants had provided details of the excess payment to the Supdt. while submitting the RT-12 Return in April 1986. The Tribunal observed that the assessing officer should have either directed the appellants to file a refund claim or forwarded the details to the Assistant Collector. Referring to Rule 173(1) of the Central Excise Rules, the Tribunal highlighted that the proper officer had a duty to either reject the request for credit or instruct the filing of a refund claim. The Tribunal concluded that the silence and inaction of the assessing officer could not be held against the appellants, and thus, the subsequent refund claim should be considered as originating from the initial notification to the Supdt.

In light of the above, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for a reconsideration of the refund claim on its merits. The Tribunal emphasized that the plea of time-bar could not be upheld in this scenario, given the circumstances and the duty of the assessing officer to address the excess payment issue promptly.