ORDER
R. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. SKM-1855/89-BI dated 12-9-1989 rejecting the appellants’ appeal on the ground that the refund claim is not legally sustainable, since under Section 11B the same is barred by time.
2. Shri J.R. Khanvilkar, the learned consultant for the appellants, stated that in this case the duty payment has been made during the period from 6-3-1986 to 13-3-1986. While filing the RT-12 Return for the month of March 1986, the appellants have pointed out the excess payment in the RT-12 Return itself seeking for refund. However, the RT-12 Return was assessed on 17-5-1987 with the remarks that they should file refund claim separately. As per the direction of the Supdt. contained in the Assessment order, refund claim came to be filed by the appellants on 14-8-1987. The order of assessment having been received by them on 17-5-1987. He contended that as per the provision of Rule 173-I(2) they are entitled to seek for credit in the PLA of amount paid in excess. Hence once this has been done, the Supdt. should have given the credit instead of directing them to file a separate claim. In any case, their endorsement on the RT-12 Return should be treated as the date of refund claim and hence the question of applying time limit laid down under Section 11B of the Act does not arise especially when they have complied with the statutory requirement of Rule 173-I of the Rules.
3. After hearing the learned consultant for the appellants, we did not call upon Shri C.P. Arya, the learned SDR to argue.
4. It is a settled law now that Sections 11A and 11B are the self-contained statutory provisions laid down for recovery of short levy or non levy and for claiming refund of payment of duty, as the case may be. It is also a settled law that a short endorsement on the RT-12 Return making a demand by the department neither saves the limitation period laid down under Section 11A of the Act nor can be said to be a demand for the purpose of Section 11A. The same ratio will also hold good in the case of any excess payment. If any excess payment is noticed, it is to be claimed by way of refund as has been advised by the Supdt. in the Assessment memorandum. Even though Rule 173-I provides for recovery of short levy and also giving credit in respect of excess payment, this rule is subject to the statutory provisions of Sections 11A or 11B, as the case may be. In this view of the matter, a proper claim should have been filed before the Assistant Collector, within the time limit prescribed notwithstanding an endorsement made by them on the RT-12 Return. In any case, such an endorsement made on RT-12 Return cannot be construed as a claim for refund, since the duty payment has not been made under protest. If the view urged by the appellants is accepted, it can lead to a situation where the assessees can make indiscriminate short endorsements claiming that duty has been paid in excess and seeking for credit in PLA, even where the issue involves consideration of exemption, applicable rate of duty or the application of proper assessable value and such questions require detailed consideration of a regular refund claim. Rule 173-I, as we see, can, at the most, operate as a simple mechanism for rectifying apparent erroneous excess payment or short payment arising on account of arithmetical errors based on the assessment made. Even in such cases, they are to be made within the statutory time limit, laid down under Section 11A or Section 11B. The Supreme Court in the case of Kosan Metal Products – 1988 (38) ELT 573 (SC) have already held that short endorsement made on RT-12 Returns for short levy cannot save the limitation for the purpose of Section 11A. The statutory provision for claiming refund of duty being Section 11B, short endorsement made on RT-12 Return by the assessee claiming excess payment cannot be said to save the limitation prescribed under Section 11B, unless it is followed up by a proper refund claim within the time limit as laid down in Section 11B.
5. In this view of the matter, we find no reason for interference, with the orders of the authorities below. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal.