1986 (3) TMI 198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Assistant Collector should be restored. 2. The facts of the case are that on 21st December, 1982 the Office of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Yeshwantpur Division, Bangalore, received a refund claim for Rs. 1,62,281.75 from the Range Officer, Peenya-I Range pertaining to M/s. Gayathri Women Welfare Association, Bangalore filed under Rule 173-L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This claim was lodged by the respondents with the Range Superintendent on the 11th December 1981 but it was received by the Divisional Office only on 21-12-1982. The Assistant Collector held that by the time the Divisional Officer came to know of the refund claim, the statutory period of six months for claiming of refund as prescribed under Sectio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eld that the claim was received by him on behalf of the Assistant Collector. He held that the date of lodging of the claim should be the date on which the claim was handed over to the Superintendent. From the respondents' side, Shri M. Raju, the Factory Manager, apart from reiterating the strong position taken in the order appealed against has filed copy of CEGAT's Order in the case of Sri Ambica Khandsari Udyog, Saharanpur v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut [1985 (21) E.L.T. 281] in which it has been decided that the period of limitation for a refund claim addressed to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise but presented to the Superintendent of Central Excise should be computed from the date when the claim was presented to the Supe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ffice was a part of the establishment of the Assistant Collector's Office. The application having been addressed to the Assistant Collector, and filed in the office of the Superintendent where, presumably, the duty has been paid, in our view, should be held sufficient to meet the requirement. We find that the term 'make' has nowhere been defined in the rules but, according to the meaning ascribed to this term in New Webster's Dictionary, Deluxe Encyclopedia Edition, one of the meaning given to this expression is: 'to frame or construct'. In this view of the matter we have no hesitation in saying that the act of the application having been addressed to the Assistant Collector, and having been presented to the jurisdictional Range Superintend....