ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. M/s. Leader Engg. Works filed refund claim for Rs. 4,62,647.04 and supplementary claim for Rs. 14,124.10, received by the Assistant Collector on 17-9-1993 and-27-9-1993 respectively claiming refund on account of annual turnover discount allowed to their customers during 1992-93. The Assistant Collector, under order dated 24-7-1994 rejected the claim as time barred as well as on merit holding that the claims were barred by time limit of six months specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and the annual turnover discount is not an admissible deduction under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act as the same is not allowed at the time and place of removal of goods. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order of the lower authority.
2. When the case was called, no one was present on behalf of the Appellants who have, however, requested under their letter dated 9-7-1998 to decide the matter on the basis of submissions already made in the memorandum of appeal and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in MRF case reported at 1995 (8) RLT 517 (S.C).
3. The Appellants have submitted in their appeal memorandum that the turnover discount, which was calculated at the close of the financial year, was passed on to the distributors/stockists through credit notes; that six months period has to be taken from the date of issue of credit notes i.e. 31-3-1993 and accordingly the refund claims were within the limitation period of six months; that discount has been allowed as per the sales policy dated 14-6-1993 which clearly indicated as to how the annual turnover discount was to be allowed; that such type of discount could not be allowed at the time and place of removal of the goods because such types of discounts were calculated at the close of the financial year by taking into account the quantum of goods lifted by the distributors/stockists; that the annual turnover discount could not be claimed within six months of payment of duty as per Section 11B as it had to be calculated at the close of the year. Heard Shri R.D. Negi, ld. SDR.
4. After considering the submissions of both the sides, we find that admittedly the refund claims were not filed within six months from the date of payment of duty as specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Explanation (B) to Section 11B defines the relevant date according to which the appellants were required to claim the refund of duty within six months from the date of payment of duty which has evidently been not done by them. Section 11B of the Act is applicable to refund of any duty of excise and the appellants cannot go beyond the statutory limit. The refund claim was thus, barred by limitation and without going into the merits, we reject the appeal on the ground of time limit alone.