1. Appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 praying that in the circumstances stated therein, the Tribunal will be pleased to set aside the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras and to order refund of the amount claimed by the appellant.
2. This appeal coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri G.M.M. Iswaraiah, representative of the appellant and upon hearing the arguments of Shri A. Vijayaraghavan, Departmental Representative for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following: 3. In his order C. No. V/17/47/82 dated 30.9.82 the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras has rejected an appeal from the appellant before us in regard to certain goods brought for reprocessing etc. in respect of which claims for refund of duty paid had been made between 5.8.77 and 11.2.80; in doing so he has observed that at the time the claims came to be decided by the Assistant Collector, Section 11B had been incorporated in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: and under Explanation B(c) to Section 11B, in a situation like the one before us, the claim has to be made within six months from the date of entry of goods into the factory for reprocessing etc.; and this condition was not satisfied in the present case. This view of the Appellate Collector is not correct, as at the time the claims were in fact preferred on the Department, Section 11B had not been enacted; Rule 11 in general along with Rule 173L in specific cases, would have been the relevant rules for consideration to deal with claims of refund of duty.
4. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Appellate Collector referred to above. We are, however, unable to direct that the Order C.No. V/17/18/2/78B.7 dated 26.5.82 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajajinagar Division, Bangalore, be restored as there are some apparent inconsistencies in the finding on facts as contained in the order; it is not clear from the order what the Assistant Collector was purporting to do when he rejected the claims for refund in three out of the five cases before him. In para 7 of his order he gives a finding that rendering of accounts has been done within six months from the date of completion of processing whereas in para 12 he observes just to the contrary! In para 10 of the order he has also observed that Section 11B is applicable to the claims. Under the circumstances we consider that the Assistant Collector misdirected himself in coming to a decision in respect of the three claims. We, therefore, set aside his order as well, in so far as it relates to the three claims under appeal before us, with the direction that he dispose of those claims in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.