STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF C EX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is directed against the order of Collector (Appeals), C.E. Calcutta dated 2.12.83 confirming the order of Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Rourkela dated 28.6.1982 and rejecting the appellant's claim for refund of Rs. 5,18,111.10 paid on account of supply of Benzene to M/s Hindustan Polymer Ltd., Vizag. THE refund in respect of the excise duty alleged to have been paid by the appellant on Benzene is for the period 1-2-1977 to 26-1-1978. According to the learned Adjudicating authority, the refund claim was preferred on 6.6.1978 and according to the appellant, it was preferred on 5.5.1978. THE claim was rejected by the authorities below on grounds of limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as it then stood. This appeal arises out of the impugned order rejecting the appellant's refund claim.

(2.) Shri Mukherjee, the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the refund claim was submitted only on 5-5-1978 and not on 6-6-1978 and placed reliance on the endorsement of the authorities on the refund applications dated 29-4-1978. It was further urged that at the relevant time, as the law then stood, the period of limitation under Rule 11, prior to amendment on 6-8-1979, read with Rule 173J of the Rules was one year and taking the period of one year if the claim of the appellant is considered, then part of the claim would be within the period of limitation.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the submissions made before us. The short question that arises is whether the refund claim of the appellant for the period 1-2-1977 to 26-1-1978 in respect of the excise duty paid on Benzene, has been filed within the period of limitation, as per law, as it then stood. At the outset, we would like to mention that the order as well as the show cause notice dated 30-8-1978 mentions 6-6-1978 as the date of receipt of appellant's refund application and the second show cause notice dated 16-11-1981, styled as supplementary show cause notice, also proceeded on the same basis. Though the appellant has given replies to the show cause notices on 13th September, 1978 and 14th December, 1981, admittedly, the appellant had not contended therein that the refund application was preferred on 5-5-1978, as it is now contended. It was correctly submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that this plea was also not taken before any of the two authorities at any time. WE, therefore, do not entertain this plea, and, therefore, proceed on the basis that the refund application was made on 6.6.1978, as held by the orignial authority.