ORDER
G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. In this appeal the appellant has challendged the orders passed by both authorities below whereunder it has been held that the refund application has to be made within six months from the relevant date and such refund application has been made beyond the period of six months. Hence it was disallowed.
2. The appellant is a Trading Firm engaged in the business of purchase and sale of Man Made Fabrics. At times the firm also got their purchased grey fabrics, processed by other independent processors. The goods were seized by the departmental officers the appellant paid the duty by the challan dated 12-1-1990 but they filed refund claim beyond six months that is 7-6-1991. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim against which an appeal was filed the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the order. Hence the present appeal.
3. The notice for hearing was given which the applicant did not appear on 17-11-1999 further by another notice dated 21-11-1999, a notice of hearing was given. The appellant was absent. Hence I have taken up for disposal according to merits.
4. In the order-in-appeal in paragraph 5 the Collector (Appeals) has held as follows.
“According to Section 11-B of CESA, 1944, a refund claim is required to be filed within 6 months from the relevant date, which, in the instant case, would be the date of payment of duty, as stipulated in clause B(f) of the Explanation to Section 11B ibid. In the instant case, the duty was paid by the appellant at the time of provisional release. Moreover, this payment was not made under any protest. As such, the refund claim was required to be filed within a period of six months from the date of payment of duty”.
The above observation of the Collector (Appeals) cannot found fault with. The limitation as prescribed under the Act and Rules has to be strictly complied with by the adjudicating authority. It is not the case here that the applicant has paid the duty under protest. If the payment has been made under protest then the question of limitation would not be applicable vide Rule 233B of the Central Excise Act. The limitation is binding on the departmental officers and this is what judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India – 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). Hence following the same, the appeal stands dismissed as devoid of merits.