SAMRAT INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 21-09-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
SAMRAT INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. 
A 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE. HYDERABAD 
SEPTEMBER 21, 1990 
[S. RANGANATHAN AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
B 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: Section 11-B Central Excise 
and Salt Rules, 1944: Rules 173 B, C, CC, D and 1-Assessee clearing 
goods under 'Self Removal' procedure-Application claiming refund of 
excess duty-Starting point for period of limitation-What is. 
The appellant was manufacturing Hacksaw blades and Bandsaw 
c 
" 
falling under Tariff Item. No. 51-A(iv) of the Central Excise Tariff. On 
26.3.1985 they filed a classification list as per Rule 173 B of the Central 
Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of their products furnishing the tariff rate 
of 15% Ad valorem by mistake Instead of furnishing the effective rates 
of duty as per Notification No. 85/85CE dated 17.3.1985. The Assistant 
D 
Collector of Central Excise approved the classification list on 3.6.198.$. 
On 31.10.1985 the appellant filed a revised classification list with the 
effective rates of its products with retrospective effect from. 26.3.1985 
which was also approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. 
, 
On 30.10.1985 the appellant made an application under section UB of 
the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 fo~ rei:imd of excise duty claim.ing 
E 
that they had paid excess excise duty from.1.4.1985 to 31.8.1985. By its 
order dated 13.12.1985 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise 
allowed the claim...olily partly but rejected the claim. for the period from. 
1.4.1985 to 27.4.i985 on. the ground that the claim. was barred under 
s.ectioli UB of the Act because the 'relevant date' for preferring the 
claim. for the appellant·.was the date of payment of duty and the ·duty 
F 
' 
had . been paid by adjnsline_nt in the personal ledger account as and 
when goods were removed~ 
The order of the Assistant Collector was coofmned in the appeal 
by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). 
Appellant's further·appeal to the Customs Excise !Uld,'Gold (Con-
G 
trot) Appefiate Tribunal was also unsuccessM. 
lo appeal to this Court under section 35L of the Central Excises 
and Salt Act, 1944 it was contended on behalf of the appellant (i) that 
"' 
mere debiting in the personal ledger account should not be fakell as the H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
starting point for limitation and the relevant date should be the date on 
which RT ·12 Returns, which were filed on a monthly basis, were asses· 
sed; and (ii) that clause (e) ofEiq1lanation to Section ll(B) was applicable 
to the case. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The scheme for payment of duty of goods under which 
the appellant was clearing his goods is known as 'self-removal' proce-
dure. There will be no time hair for refund if the duty is paid under 
protest. The period of 6 months is prescribed in other cases. [6H; 7 A) 
2. In the instant case, the classification list filed by the appellant 
for the period 1.4.1985 to 27.4.1985 was not approved till 3.6.85. From 
provisions of Rules 173B, 173C and 173CC of the Central Excise Rules, 
1944 it is clear that clearances can be made only after the approval of 
the list by the particular officer. However, if there is likely to be delay in 
accordance with the approval the officer can allow the assessee to avail 
himself of the procedure prescribed under Rule 9B for. provisional 
assessment of goods. Between 1st April, 1975 when the classification list 
was filed and 3rd June, 1985 when the list was approved, the assessee 
was clearing the goods by determining the duty himself an!! debiting 
the amount of duty in his personal ledger accoll!lt. The amount of duty 
paid by him was obviously provisional and subject to the result of the 
E 
final approval hy the officer concerned. In these circumstances, the 
clearance of goods made by the appellant between 1st April and 3rd of 
June, 1985 were in accordance with the procedure for provisional 
assessment. In such a situation clause (e) of para (B) of the Explanation 
under section llB will be attracted. The RT-12 Return for the month nf 
F 
G 
H 
April, 1985 was filed on 8.5 .1985 and the same was assessed on 
29.10.1985. It is, therefore, only from the date of this assessment that 
time bar in section llB will 01~erate. The refund application having 
been filed on 30th October, 1\185 cannot, therefore, said to be time 
barred. [7B-D; E-F) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4460 
of 1988. 
F

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.