BIRLA ERICSSON OPTICAL LTD. Vs. CCE, BHOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have carefully examined the records and heard both sides. The dispute is with regard to a refund claim made by the appellants. The claim was made for refund of excess duty paid, upon adjustment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules at the time of final assessment of duty liability. The claim was rejected on the ground that it was made beyond a period of six months from the date of finalisation of assessment. Ld. Advocate Sh. N.R. Khetan has been able to make out a prima facie case that the limitation provisions of Section 11B of the Cental Excise Act were not applicable to cases of refund contemplated by Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules at the material time, by citing relevant case law as well as subsequent amendments to Section 11B made in 1999. Ld. JDR Sh. Swatantra Kumar has opposed ld. Counsel's argument by relying on the provisions of Section 11B as well as of Rule 173S of the Central Excise Rules. A prima facie case does exist in the appeal. The appeal is admitted and posted for regular hearing to 24.4.2001.