1995 (5) TMI 149 - AT - Customs

Tribunal dismisses appeal on refund claim rejection due to limitation under Central Excises and Salt Act

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Collector (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal regarding the rejection of a refund claim on the grounds of ... Appellate Tribunal - Jurisdiction Issues:- Appeal against the rejection of a refund claim on the ground of limitation.- Whether delay in filing the refund claim can be condoned.- Whether a claim filed by a related party can be deemed as filed by the appellant.- Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act regarding time limits for filing refund claims.- Whether the claim filed by another party on behalf of the appellant is valid.- Whether the manufacturer who reprocessed the goods can claim the refund.Analysis:The case involves an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) on the basis of being barred by limitation. The appellant processed a consignment of detergent powder for export, which was later remade into other products for domestic sale due to the cancellation of the export order. The refund claim was initially filed by a related party, M/s. Hindustan Lever, but was returned and subsequently filed by the appellant before the jurisdictional Collector, which was rejected as time-barred.The appellant argued that the delay in filing the claim should be condoned due to a bona fide belief that the claim could be made at a different location. However, the Tribunal held that Section 11B of the Act provides specific time limits for filing refund claims, and there is no provision for condoning the delay in this case. The Tribunal emphasized that inherent powers cannot be read into a statute when a specific time limit is prescribed.Additionally, the appellant contended that the claim filed by Hindustan Lever should be deemed as filed by the appellant since the reprocessing took place in a different factory. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the manufacturer who reprocessed the goods is the one entitled to claim the refund, as per Rule 173M. The Tribunal clarified that the jurisdictional Assistant Collector is responsible for processing refund claims, even if reprocessing occurs in a different factory.Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Collector (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the claim for refund relates to the duty paid on the goods at the time of clearance, and the manufacturer who reprocessed the goods is the rightful claimant, not a related party like Hindustan Lever.