Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
R.S.R. Mohota Spg. And Wvg. Mills Pvt. ... vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 24 June, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1989(42)ELT731(TRI-DEL)
ORDER V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)
1. The appellants M/s. R.S. Rekhchand Mohota Spg. & Wvg. Mills Pvt. Ltd. preferred a refund claim in a sum of Rs. 61,735/- on the ground that the same had been paid by mistake as yarn duty in respect of fabrics manufactured during the period 18-6-1977 to 14-7-1977 and cleared during the period 15-7-1977 to 31-12-1977. According to them no such duty was payable in terms of notification 132 of 77 dated 18-6-1977 which was later rescinded by notification 226 of 77 dated 15-7-1977. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector under his order dated 28-10-1980. He held that the refund claimed by the appellants was not payable to them on merits and further held that the refund claim was in any event barred by time. On appeal the Appellate Collector agreed with the conclusion of the Assistant Collector on the merits of the claim. He therefore did not go.
2. We have heard Shri G.L. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellants and Smt. Saxena for the Deptt.
3. As Shri Deshpande points out the merits of the refund claim is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Morarjee Goculdas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (1985 Vol. 20 ELT 379). Hence following the said decision the finding of the Appellate Collector as to the merits of the refund claim has to be necessarily set aside.
4. As earlier mentioned the Appellate Collector did not go into the question of limitation though the Assistant Collector had held the refund claim to be barred by time. Smt Saxena urged before us that the refund should be denied on the question of limitation. We find that the claim had been preferred on 4-1-1978. (The learned Counsel mentioned that he would not rely on the earlier tetter dated 31-12-1977). This claim dated 4-1-1978 was addressed to the Assistant Collector but presented to the Supdt. Smt Saxena contends that the Collector's trade notice 15/72 had made it clear that refund claims were to be presented to the Assistant Collector, specifying the documents that should also accompany the refund claim. Her contention is that since this refund claim dated 4-1-1978 was presented to the Supdt. only and the refund claim finally reached the Assistant Collector on 29-1-1980 only the refund claim must be held to have been presented on 29-1-1980 only and was therefore rightly rejected as barred by time.
5. We find that the Supdt. who had received to rectify various defects pointed out by him in their refund claim and that this correspondence went on till 1980 and it is thereafter that the refund claim was sent to the Assistant Collector on 29-1-1980. This course of conduct of the Supdt. would itself establish that there was a practice that the refund claim though addressed to the Assistant Collector was required to be presented to the Supdt. who was to scrutinise the claims and thereafter submit the same to the Assistant Collector evidently with his remarks etc. We therefore hold that the claim must be held to have been presented to the Assistant Collector on 4-1-1978 when it was handed over to the Supdt. who must have received it on behalf of the Assistant Collector. If so the entire claim was within time under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules.
6. We accordingly allow, this appeal, set aside the order of the lower authorities and direct refund to be granted as prayed for.