TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.4, dated 27.5.1987 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.3 and dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short "the Tribunal") and to direct the respondents to refund the amount of excise duty along with interest thereon. 2. A few relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition as narrated therein may be noticed. The petitioner had paid the excise duty on iron and steel products made of steel ingots amounting to Rs. 1,03,670.60 in terms of notification No. 206/63. Since no duty was liable to be paid on such products, the petitioner applied for refund, the details of which are as under:- i) Refund claim of Rs. 41,161.33 pertaining to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ground that the claims were time barred under Rule 11 of the C.E. Rules, 1944. The appellant's contention is that initially, the Appellate Collector had given the benefit of Notification No. 206/63 and the Assistant Collector had no authority to reject the claim as time barred. The second plea taken by the appellant was that their case was not covered under Rule 11. The scope of Rule 11 was restricted to claims of refund arising out of duties or charges paid through inadvertence error or misconstruction whereas the appellant's case is a case of payment of duty under mistake of law and as such their case was not governed under Rule 11 but was to be governed under the Central law of limitation. 2. I have gone through the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....98) ELT 583 (SC) to contend that the refund claim would be governed by the time limit provided under the statute and not by general law of limitation when the refund claim is filed before the departmental authorities. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the revenue. Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short "1944 Rules") prevailing prior to 1.6.1977 reads thus:- "No duties or charges which have been paid or have been adjusted in an account current maintained with the Collector under Rule 9, and of which repayment wholly or in part is claimed in consequence of the same having been paid through inadvertence, error or misconst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of limitation applicable was three years. Reliance is placed on Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Auriaya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad, 1986 (25) ELT 867, D. Cawasji & Co. & others v. State of Mysore & Anr., 1978 (2) ELT (J 154) and English Electric Co. (supra). None of these decisions appear to be helpful. The decisions were rendered in cases in which the assessee had sought its remedy by way of invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court or this Court and it was in those cases that the Court held that the period of limitation was three years. 4. In our opinion, the controversy stands concluded by the decision of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/s Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Jaandhar, 1988....