1984 (6) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... alleged to have arisen out of Order No. 13/84-C dated 10-1-1984 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal : 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in holding that the claim for refund is under the Statute (The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944) and as such governed by the provision of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the period of limitation which would apply in respect of the refund claim would be that which existed at the time of filing the application for refund and not the period of limitation which existed at the time of payment of excise duty ? 2. We have heard Shri Anant Haksar, Advocate Counsel for the applicants and Smt.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of excise duty ? Regarding question No. 1, the applicant is claiming the refund of excess amount of duty paid by him, on the basis of statutory notification No. 196/76-C.E. dated 16-6-1976 by virtue of which exemption has been granted on the goods Potassium Permanganate manufactured by the applicant, in form of 25% rebate of excise duty on the clearances affected in excess of the base clearance. It shows that his right of refund has been conferred by the Statute. The excess amount of duty was paid during the period 14-1-1977 to 31-3-1977. The refund claim was filed on 1-3-1978 when the provisions of Rule 11 were applicable, which read as under :- "Rule 11. Claim for refund of duty -(1) Any person claiming refund of any duty paid by hi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Section 11B) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 [1978 E.L.T. ( 474)]. 7. By filing a refund application seeking refund of Rs. 26,750 - by virtue of statutory Notification No. 196/76-C.E. dated 16-6-1976, the applicant himself had resorted to the provisions of Rule 11 (now Section 11B) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It does not lie in the mouth of the applicant to dispute this settled proposition of law that statutory claim for refund can only be maintained under and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11. 8. As the answer to this question of law is self evident, it would be futile to make a reference to the Hon'ble High Court. 9. Regarding question No. (2), its answer is also self evident. In this case befo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the application for refund would be applicable. The law of limitation is a procedural law and as such it comes into effect right from the moment it has been enacted and governs all proceedings instituted thereafter. 11. The order against which reference is sought to be made does not determine any question of law which requires reference to and determination by the Hon'ble High Court. The well settled legal proposition is that amended law relating to procedure operates retrospectively and does not create new disabilities or obligations nor does it impose new duties in respect to the transactions which were complete at the time when the amendment came into force. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India ....