Collector of Central Excise Vs. Crystal Paints

Collector of Central Excise vs Crystal Paints

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 28, 1987

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/3407

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/3407
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Apr 28, 1987
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Crystal Paints

Legal References

Reported In: (1987)(14)ECC384

Excerpt

.....excise, division 'p', bombay by order dated 21-7-1979 rejected the claim as barred by limitation. in appeal, the collector of central excise (appeals) bombay by order no. v-2( 14)2026/79/644, dated 19-1-1983 held that at the material time old rule 11 read with rule 173j of central excise rules, 1944 was in force and had limitation of one year for claiming refund from the date of payment of duty. the regular claim for refund lodged on 21-6-1978 with reference to duty paid between 15-7-1977 to 3-8-1977 was within limitation. with this findings, he allowed the appeal. aggrieved with this decision, the collector of central excise, bombay has presented this appeal to the tribunal. the respondent has also file what it calls a cross objection but which is in the nature of comments to the grounds of appeal.2. notice of the date of hearing was issued by registered ad post to the parties on 18-3-1987. none has appeared for the respondents nor any further communication received from them. smt. chander, departmental representative was therefore, heard for the appellant - collector of central excise, bombay. smt. chander submitted that claim for refund for the excess duty paid between 15-7-1977 to 3-8-1977 was presented on 24-6-1978 i.e. beyond six months limitation prescribed under rule 11 amended with effect from 6-8-1977. therefore, the respondents claim should be rejected as barred by limitation. the impugned order should be set aside and the order-in-original passed by assistant collector be restored.3. it is not possible to agree with smt. chander's contention.limitation for claiming refund under rule 11 read with rule 1733 of central excise rules, 1944, before it was substituted by new rule 11, was one year from the date of payment of duty. the respondents right to claim refund arose when the old rule 11 was in force. dealing with the same question, a division bench of the bombay high court in universal drinks private ltd., nagpur v. union of india & another.....

Full Judgment

1. The respondent-manufacturer, for excess duty paid between the period 15-7-1977 to 3-8-1977, applied for refund of duty on 24-6-1978. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division 'P', Bombay by order dated 21-7-1979 rejected the claim as barred by limitation. In appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay by Order No. V-2( 14)2026/79/644, dated 19-1-1983 held that at the material time old Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was in force and had limitation of one year for claiming refund from the date of payment of duty. The regular claim for refund lodged on 21-6-1978 with reference to duty paid between 15-7-1977 to 3-8-1977 was within limitation. With this findings, he allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with this decision, the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay has presented this appeal to the Tribunal. The respondent has also file what it calls a Cross objection but which is in the nature of comments to the grounds of appeal.

2. Notice of the date of hearing was issued by registered AD post to the parties on 18-3-1987. None has appeared for the respondents nor any further communication received from them. Smt. Chander, Departmental Representative was therefore, heard for the appellant - Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. Smt. Chander submitted that claim for refund for the excess duty paid between 15-7-1977 to 3-8-1977 was presented on 24-6-1978 i.e. beyond six months limitation prescribed under Rule 11 amended with effect from 6-8-1977. Therefore, the respondents claim should be rejected as barred by limitation. The impugned order should be set aside and the order-in-original passed by Assistant Collector be restored.

3. It is not possible to agree with Smt. Chander's contention.

Limitation for claiming refund under Rule 11 read with Rule 1733 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, before it was substituted by new Rule 11, was one year from the date of payment of duty. The respondents right to claim refund arose when the old Rule 11 was in force. Dealing with the same question, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Universal Drinks Private Ltd., Nagpur v. Union of India & Another [1984 (18) ELT 207 (Bom.)] in paras 11 and 12 held - "In these petitions, it is clear that the payment of the excise duty, of which refund is claimed, is made and a right to refund thereof arose prior to 6-8-1977 i.e. the date on which the new Rule 11 has come into force. The said right to claim refund is a vested right which has accrued to the petitioner prior to new Rule 11 or at any rate is an existing right. It is a settled principle of interpretation of statutes that a vested right or even an existing right, including a right of action is not affected or allowed or taken away by the enactment expressly or by necessary implication.

It is only a declaratory or a procedural enactment which is normally held to be retrospective. A remedial Act, on the contrary, is not necessarily retrospective, it may be either enlarging or restraining and it takes effect prospectively unless it has retrospective effect by express terms or necessary intendment".

"In our view the new Rule 11 is clearly prospective in its operation in the sense that it will apply to the cases in which the right to claim refund has arisen after it came into force. This view is supported by the language of the new Rule 11 itself." 4. In view of the above said Bombay High court decision, the appellants contention that six months limitation under new Rule 11 should apply to the claim from refund is not acceptable. The appeal therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Crystal Paints Same Subject Excise