Collector of Central Excise Vs. Rewa Sugar Works and anr.

Collector of Central Excise vs Rewa Sugar Works and anr.

Disposition Application dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Aug 09, 1991

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/483709

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/483709
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. and; R.E. Mehrotra, J.
Decided On: Aug 09, 1991
Subject: Excise
Disposition: Application dismissed

Case Summary

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

Refund - Limitation--Appeal addressed to Assistant Collector through Superintendent and filed within time in his office is not time barred. CESA: Section 11B. - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Ala...

Key legal issue: Excise
Outcome / disposition: Application dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Rewa Sugar Works and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: 1991(37)LC190(Allahabad)

Excerpt

refund - limitation--appeal addressed to assistant collector through superintendent and filed within time in his office is not time barred. cesa: section 11b. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled].1. though as many as ten questions are sought to be raised under section 35g(3) of the central excises and salt act, 1944, only one question is argued before us which is comprised in questions no. 2 to 4. indeed it appears that questions no. 1, 7 to 10 were not even raised in the application for reference filed before the tribunal. be that as it may, we will address to the only aspect argued before us.2. the only question for consideration is whether the refund claim filed by the petitioner was beyond the period of limitation prescribed in section 11b of the act; six months is the period of limitation. within six months' period, the respondent manufacturer filed the refund claim. it was addressed to the excise collector, central excise, sa-haranpur through the supdt. it was filed before the supdt., in the office of the said asstt. collector. though it was filed within the period of limitation before the supdt., by the time he forwarded it to the asstt. collector and the latter received it, six months period had expired. on this ground the refund claim was dismissed as barred by limitation. the tribunal has held, in our opinion rightly, that the rejection is unjustified. the application was not even addressed to the supdt. it was addressed to the asstt. collector, namely, the jurisdictional officer. it was addressed to him through the supdt., and was filed before the supdt., working in the office of the jurisdictional asstt. collector only. in these circumstances to say that the application was filed beyond limitation is totally unjustified.3. the application for reference is accordingly rejected. no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

1. Though as many as ten questions are sought to be raised under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, only one question is argued before us which is comprised in Questions No. 2 to 4. Indeed it appears that Questions No. 1, 7 to 10 were not even raised in the application for reference filed before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, we will address to the only aspect argued before us.

2. The only question for consideration is whether the refund claim filed by the petitioner was beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 11B of the Act; six months is the period of limitation. Within six months' period, the respondent manufacturer filed the refund claim. It was addressed to the Excise Collector, Central Excise, Sa-haranpur through the Supdt. It was filed before the Supdt., in the office of the said Asstt. Collector. Though it was filed within the period of limitation before the Supdt., by the time he forwarded it to the Asstt. Collector and the latter received it, six months period had expired. On this ground the refund claim was dismissed as barred by limitation. The Tribunal has held, in our opinion rightly, that the rejection is unjustified. The application was not even addressed to the Supdt. It was addressed to the Asstt. Collector, namely, the jurisdictional officer. It was addressed to him through the Supdt., and was filed before the Supdt., working in the office of the jurisdictional Asstt. Collector only. In these circumstances to say that the application was filed beyond limitation is totally unjustified.

3. The application for reference is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1991 Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Rewa Sugar Works and anr. Same Subject Excise Same Judge B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. and; R.E. Mehrotra, J.

Excise