Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Hindustan Motors Ltd. vs Cce on 9 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(109)ECR663(TRI.-KOLKATA)
ORDER Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. The present appeal is against the refund claim rejected by the authorities below on the ground of time-bar. The said refund claim was preferred by the appellants under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, vis-a-vis Notification No. 6/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000 (as amended). In the said Notification, the motor vehicle which after clearance, has been registered for use solely as taxi attracted lower rate of duty. As per the condition No. 43(b) of the said Notification, if the manufacturer who has paid the higher rate of duty and files for refund of duty paid in excess, is required to file the same before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty on the said motor vehicle. Undoubtedly, the appellants have filed the refund claim after the expiry of about six months. However, their contention is that the general time-limit as provided under the provisions of Section 11B, should be taken into consideration as the said Section covers all the refund claims. As such, Shri K.P. Dey, learned Advocate has argued that the period of six months laid down in Notification No. 6/2000-CE should be substituted for one year and the refund claim be considered as within time.
2. After hearing both sides, I find that there is a specific provision under Notification No. 6/2000-CE and under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, requiring the assessee to file the refund claim within six months. No doubt, the provisions of Section 11B covers all types of claims for refund and the provisions are general in nature, but when the Notification issued under Section 5A lays down a specific period for filing the refund claim, the period so prescribed cannot be enlarged by the authorities working under the Act or by the Tribunal itself. Inasmuch as the Notification specifically provides for the period of sic months for filing the refund claim, and the refund claim having been filed after a period of six months, I find no justification for interfering in the order of the authorities below. The appeal is accordingly rejected.
Pronounced in the open Court.