ORDER
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa
1. The impugned Order has rejected the appellants’ claim for refund of duty of Rs.4,43,878.00 for the period – 1971-72, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It has also been observed by the appellate authority that the duty of which the refund is being claimed was neither paid under protest nor under provisional assessments, as envisaged under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. The appellants, duly represented by Shri Subir Ganguly, learned Advocate, do not contest the above factual position of the duty having not been paid under protest or the assessments being not provisional. However, it has been strongly urged by the learned Advocate that the refund claim was filed within a period of six months from the detection of the mistake, based upon the Honourable Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Bombay Tyre International and Another. As such, it has been submitted that the refund of duty should have been allowed by the Department. Reliance, in this connection, has been placed on the various decisions of the High Courts as also of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3. Shri R.K.Roy, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue has opposed the appellants’ prayer for allowance of refund claim under the General Provisions of Section 72 of the Contract Act.
4. After hearing both sides and duly appreciating their contentions, it is seen that the issue is no more ‘res integra.’ It is a settled law that the Tribunal being a creature of the Act cannot relax the time-limit laid down in Section 11B of the Act and has to exercise its jurisdiction within the powers conferred by the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Miles India Ltd. reported in 1983-ELT-1026(CEGAT) and the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills reported in 1988(37) ELT-478, has very clearly held that the time-limit as prescribed under the provisions of the Excise Act or the Customs Act, has to be adhered to by the authorities. As such, we do not find any force in the submissions of the learned Advocate. The refund of duty having been admittedly filed after a period of six months from the relevant date, as provided under Section 11B of the Act, is clearly barred by limitation.
5. We also note that the demand of duty of Rs.1,36,835.51 has also been confirmed against the appellants by disallowance of certain deductions from the assessable value. We find that the impugned Order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the year, 1985. Thereafter, the law on the point of arriving at the correct assessable value has been developed by the various pronouncements of the Honourable Supreme Court, especially the decision in the case of MRF Ltd. As such, we feel that the deduction as claimed by the appellants can be looked into afresh by the adjudicating authority, after applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MRF. With these observations, the appeal pertaining to refund claim is rejected and pertaining to demand of duty, is remanded.