ORDER
K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
1. The facts relating to this appeal, briefly, are that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Lucknow, by his order dated 27-8-1981, rejected a refund claim for Rs. 4,194.88 filed by the appellants of excess duty paid on biris cleared by them on 29-3-1979 on the ground that the refund claim was received in the Assistant Collector’s office on 5-11-1991 and being beyond 6 months after the date of payment of duty was hit by limitation under Section 11B of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, Assistant Collector’s order was upheld in appeal. When the case was called, none was present for the appellants, who have requested that the appeal may be decided on merits. They have contended that they had filed the refund claim in time on 10-8-1989 with the jurisdictional Inspector of Central Excise, Sultanpur as per prevailing practice in respect of such claim and the delay had occurred in the Inspector forwarding the claim to the Assistant Collector’s office. Relying on a Tribunal decision in the case of Periacaramalai Tea Processors v. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore -1986 (23) E.L.T. 174, they have urged that if the refund claim is presented in time with the Superintendent of Central Excise and if it is delayed in transmission to the Assistant Collector’s office, the claim cannot be rejected as time-barred. We have heard Smt. Shanti Sundaram, Ld. SDR, who very fairly referred to a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Talayar Tea Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin -1993 (64) E.L.T. 13 (Ker) which was also on the same basis as CEGAT decision supra.
2. On a careful consideration of the submissions made, we are of the view that the matter is covered by the ratio of the above cited decisions. The Kerala High Court decision was given on a Reference Application by the Tribunal to the High Court on the specific question whether the time limit under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules for claiming refunds can be computed from the date of receipt of the application addressed to the Assistant Collector and filed with the Superintendent under whose jurisdiction, the claimant’s factory is located. The High Court concluded, “The claim for refund should be made to the Assistant Collector. That is all. It need not be presented before the Assistant Collector. It is also evident that consistent with prior practice, the application was received by Range Office without demur. It was not returned as defective. The assessee was not directed to present the claim before the Assistant Collector. This is the normal course that should have been adopted, if the claim was not entertainable by the Range Office, though addressed to the Assistant Collector.” Therefore, in this case the lower authorities will have to examine the claim afresh as to whether it had been addressed to the Assistant Collector and whether the filing thereof was in the Range office within the time limit under Section 11B and whether that was done in accordance with the then prevailing practice for filing and processing such claims. If so, the claim cannot be rejected as time-barred. The impugned order is hence set aside and the case is remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector in the above terms.