ORDER
V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)
1. In this reference application filed by Revenue, the following question of law has been proposed to be referred to the Hon’ble High Court :-
“Whether the Hon’ble CEGAT is correct in holding that the 6 months time limit under Section 11B commences from the date of finalisation of the provisional assessment after the amendment with effect from 20-9-1991 of sub-clause (e) of Clause (B) of the explanation under Section 11B by Section 3 of the Central Excise and Customs Laws (Amendment Act ,1991).”
2. Heard Id. DR who submits that in Tribunal’s final Order No. 2453/98 dated 20-11-1998, it had been held that since the assessments were under provisional assessment during the relevant period, therefore, the limitation period of 6 months under Section 11B for refund claim would start from the date of finalisation of the provisional assessment and payment of duty on that basis. However, by explanation (e) which was introduced on 20-9-1991 to the said Section, the relevant date is held to be the date of payment of duty. Hence, the above question arises for reference to the Hon’ble High Court.
3. Heard Shri K.R. Natarajan, Id. Advocate for respondents who submits that the said explanation does not pertain to a manufacturer but clearly pertains only to a person who is other than the manufacturer and therefore is not relevant to the issue considered by the final order at all. There is no merit in the said reference application and same needs to be rejected.
4. I have carefully considered these submissions and records of the case and I find in para-6 of statements of facts annexed by Revenue to the said reference application that the Commissionerate itself has conceded that prior to the amendment of the Section by sub-clause (e) of the explanation, the relevant date for computing six months time limit was the date of finalisation of provisional assessment. This reference has been submitted only in view of sub-clause (e) ibid. A perusal of sub-clause (e) ibid shows that the date applies only to any person other than manufacturer. The appeal considered by the said final order was from M/s. Velathal Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., who are registered manufacturers under the Act and therefore the sub-clause (e) would not apply to the facts of this case at all. Therefore, I find that the reference application is totally misplaced in law and same is rejected .