Skip to content


Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise Ii - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1983)LC1075DTri(Mum.)bai
AppellantBharat Petroleum Corporation
RespondentCollector of Central Excise Ii
Excerpt:
.....bombay vide order no. v 2(6) 2190/81/10692 dated 26.10.82, requesting for refund of excise duty paid in excess. the learned collector had disposed of four appeals in a consolidated order.2. shri c.r. dafle on behalf of the appellant has submitted before us that storage tank nos. 407 and 508 were recalibrated by the cpwd authorities and recalibration was approved with effect from 1.8.77 and subsequently in april, 1980 cpwd authorities informed that recalibration was ed or received was more than the actual quantity as revealed from the revised recalibration w.e.f. 20.4,1980. as a result, during the intervening period, the appellant paid more duty and filed the refund claims as under: _____________________________________________________________________________ s. no. appeal no. dt......
Judgment:
1. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Lid., Bombay have filed an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central brxcise (Appeals), Bombay vide order No. V 2(6) 2190/81/10692 dated 26.10.82, requesting for refund of excise duty paid in excess. The learned Collector had disposed of four appeals in a consolidated order.

2. Shri C.R. Dafle on behalf of the appellant has submitted before us that storage tank Nos. 407 and 508 were recalibrated by the CPWD authorities and recalibration was approved with effect from 1.8.77 and subsequently in April, 1980 CPWD authorities informed that recalibration was ed or received was more than the actual quantity as revealed from the revised recalibration w.e.f. 20.4,1980. As a result, during the intervening period, the appellant paid more duty and filed the refund claims as under: _____________________________________________________________________________ S. No. Appeal No. Dt. of refund Period to which claim claims pertained.

____________________________________________________________________________ 1.

2190/81 a) 10.2.81/16 2.81 25.3.80 to 20.5.80 b) 23.1.81/ 6.2.81 22.2.78 to 29.3.80 2.

1621/81 a) 23.10.80 4.10.77 to 31.3.80 b) 23.10.80 3.

32 0/81 a) 18.11.80 1.4.80 to 30.6.80 b) 1.12.80 4. 3269/81 a) 26.6.81 Prior to 20.4.80 b) 23.6.81 ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Shri C.R. Dafle, authorised representative on behalf of the Company has submitted before us that crucial date from which the limitation starts should be the date on which the appellant became aware of the excess payment of excise duty and Section 11 B had come into force w.e.f. 17th day of November, 1980 inserted by Finance Act 2 of 1980.

4. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted before us that appellant's claim for refund is rightly covered by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This Rule was omitted by the Central Excise (Fifteenth Amendments) Rules 1980 and the omitted Rule ran as under: Claim for refund of dutyany person claiming refund of any duty paid by him, may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty : Provided that the limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest.

5. The learned D.R. also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Madras Rubber Factory . According to this judgment, time limit for refund claim has to be computed with reference to the time limit specified in relevant section or Rule and according to Rule 11, time limit has to be computed with reference to the] date on which the duty was paid. There is no dispute as to the fact that] these refund claims were made after expiry of six months time limit.

6. We have gone through the facts and legal position and are satisfied that the refund claims are time barred as argued by the Departmental Representative. The appellants cannot claim the benefit of Limitation Act. We uphold the orders passed by the lower authorities. The appeal is hereby dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //