1991 (8) TMI 198 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds time-barred refund claim under Section 11B Central Excises Act

PREMIER CABLE CO. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

The Tribunal upheld the decision that the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, with the limitation ... Refund - Limitation Issues:1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding the refund application as time-barred under Section 11B of the ActRs.2. Can a refund application be filed within 6 months from the date of approval of a retrospectively revised price list for excess duty paidRs.3. Is it permissible to file a refund application within 6 months from the date the cause of action arose, i.e., the retrospective approval of the price listRs.Analysis:Issue 1:The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision that the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The limitation period was deemed to commence from the date of payment of duty. The applicants sought a refund for duty paid in excess based on a previously approved higher price list. The contention was that the RT 12 returns were assessed post the price list approval, and no refund had been granted for that. The key argument was whether the refund application was correctly deemed time-barred.Issue 2:The applicants had filed a revised price list, effective from a specific date, which was approved later. The question arose whether, in the case of a downward revision in a price list approved retrospectively, the applicant could file a refund application within 6 months from the approval date for the excess duty paid. The Tribunal's decision on this issue was crucial in determining the applicability of the limitation period in such scenarios.Issue 3:The Tribunal considered Rule 173C(5), which allows provisional assessment in case of delays in price list approval. Despite no request for provisional assessment by the applicants or bond execution, RT 12 returns were not assessed, indicating a provisional treatment of the price list. Citing a precedent involving Premier Automobiles Ltd., the Tribunal noted that assessments made on a provisional basis due to pending finalization of prices do not trigger the limitation period for raising demands. The question of law here was whether the refund application could be filed within 6 months from the date of retrospective approval of the price list.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the legal principles applied by the Tribunal in reaching its decision.