A.P. Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. in this application for rectification of mistake, the point urged by the petitioner is discernible from paragraph 9 of the petition. for a proper understanding of the contention raised therein, we read paragraph 9 - that pursuant to and under the directions of the hon'ble supreme court, the appellants herein by its letter dated 10-1-1990 submitted a refund claim of rs. 3,23,34,410.95 for the period 16-3-1976 to 30-11-89 and by letter dated 26-10-90 submitted another refund claim of rs. 17,95,359.98 for the period 1-12-89 to 30-6-90 totalling to rs. 3,41,30,170.93 to the excise authorities. the amount for refund was claimed on the various discounts allowed by the appellants as a matter of practice to its buyers and the expenses incurred by the appellant, which were claimed under 7 major heads.2. while dealing with the claim for refund we categorically observed that claims falling within six months immediately prior to the date of the application alone are to be dealt with. this aspect has been made clear in paragraph 1 of the final order. it reads as follows : the issue that remains to be decided in this appeal falls within a short compass. claims put forth by the appellant for refund have been rejected by the authorities below, namely, on the ground of limitation. after screening the entire claims and applications for refund, it has come out that the claims of refund made by the applications dated 9-6-1981 and 6-8-1981 alone are to be dealt with because applications of refund filed earlier are clearly barred by limitation. even the claims made in the application dated 9-6-1981 does not fall within the statutory period, in its entirety. that application was in relation to the refund claim for the period from 12-8-1980 to 12-2-1981. a portion of that period falls outside six months immediately preceding the date of filing the application. it can only relate to the claims filed within six months immediately preceding the date of the application. same is the case in relation to the application dated 6-8-1981. claims falling within six months immediately prior to the dates of these applications, 9-6-1981 and 6-8-1981 need alone be dealt with.3. the fact that applicant happened to file refund application, purporting to be in compliance with the direction given by the supreme court will not, in any way, take those applications out of the period of limitation. in this view of the matter there is no merit in this application for rectification of mistake. a mistake, even if there is, which is to be established by long drawn argument, cannot be one which will fall within section 35c(2) of the central excise act. as there is no mistake apparent from the record, the present application is ill-conceived. it is accordingly dismissed.

Judgment:
1. In this application for rectification of mistake, the point urged by the petitioner is discernible from paragraph 9 of the petition. For a proper understanding of the contention raised therein, we read paragraph 9 - That pursuant to and under the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellants herein by its letter dated 10-1-1990 submitted a refund claim of Rs. 3,23,34,410.95 for the period 16-3-1976 to 30-11-89 and by letter dated 26-10-90 submitted another refund claim of Rs. 17,95,359.98 for the period 1-12-89 to 30-6-90 totalling to Rs. 3,41,30,170.93 to the excise authorities. The amount for refund was claimed on the various discounts allowed by the appellants as a matter of practice to its buyers and the expenses incurred by the appellant, which were claimed under 7 major heads.

2. While dealing with the claim for refund we categorically observed that claims falling within six months immediately prior to the date of the application alone are to be dealt with. This aspect has been made clear in paragraph 1 of the final order. It reads as follows : The issue that remains to be decided in this appeal falls within a short compass. Claims put forth by the appellant for refund have been rejected by the authorities below, namely, on the ground of limitation. After screening the entire claims and applications for refund, it has come out that the claims of refund made by the applications dated 9-6-1981 and 6-8-1981 alone are to be dealt with because applications of refund filed earlier are clearly barred by limitation. Even the claims made in the application dated 9-6-1981 does not fall within the statutory period, in its entirety. That application was in relation to the refund claim for the period from 12-8-1980 to 12-2-1981. A portion of that period falls outside six months immediately preceding the date of filing the application. It can only relate to the claims filed within six months immediately preceding the date of the application. Same is the case in relation to the application dated 6-8-1981. Claims falling within six months immediately prior to the dates of these applications, 9-6-1981 and 6-8-1981 need alone be dealt with.

3. The fact that applicant happened to file refund application, purporting to be in compliance with the direction given by the Supreme Court will not, in any way, take those applications out of the period of limitation. In this view of the matter there is no merit in this application for rectification of mistake. A mistake, even if there is, which is to be established by long drawn argument, cannot be one which will fall within Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act. As there is no mistake apparent from the record, the present application is ill-conceived. It is accordingly dismissed.