1998 (4) TMI 348

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal)]. "Whether in the circumstances explained in Annexure 'A' (i) the appellant's letter dated 21-1-1993 for condonation of delay, for filing the registration papers should be treated as refund application in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or (ii) claim for refund filed on 27-8-1993 should be treated as refund application in terms of Section 11B of the Act. (iii) Whether Tribunal can go beyond Section 11B to condone such delay and treat the application filed after six months as within time." 2. Arguing the Reference Application, Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, the ld. JDR, submits that Section 11B was amended in 1991; that with the amendment of Section 11B, submission of the refund claim in the prescribed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt could be treated as a claim for refund. He relies on the decision in the case of M/s. Precision Drilling Equipments v. C.C.E., Meerut [1997 (93) E.L.T. 448]. He, therefore, prayed that the question of law should be re-formulated and referred to the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 4. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, the ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondents herein, submits that the Tribunal had not only placed reliance on M/s. K.B. Foams case but also considered all the facts on record. He submitted that the Respondents herein in their letter dated 21-1-1993 had very clearly stated that they will be claiming refund of duty in terms of Notification No. 162/86, dated 1-3-1986. The ld. Counsel submitted that this notification, among oth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent. We do not think there is any basis for such an apprehension. The direction of the Tribunal has to be construed as a direction to consider the application for refund in accordance with law subject to valid defence, if any, available to the Department to contest the assessee's claim for refund, in accordance with law." 5. The ld. Counsel, therefore, submitted that no question of law arises in the instant case. 6. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that Section 11B was amended with effect from 20-9-1991. With the amendment of Section 11B, the refund claim was required to be filed in the proforma prescribed. In the instant case, the issue for decision by the Tribunal was that the Assessee had staked his claim of r....