Page 95 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 5
quantity of 2640 M.T. of Stainless Coin Blanks supplied to the Gov-
ernment of India by the Assessee Company. In other words, all the
clearances made by the Assessee through indigenous source i.e.,
2640 M.T. was exempted from levy of payment of Excise duty.
(ii) However, since the Assessee started supplying the Coin Blanks
from January, 1994 itself, but the exemption notification was issued
by C.B.E. & C. only after nine months from 21-9-1994, the Excise du-
ty was paid initially by the Assessee on its own and which was not
charged from the Department of Economic Affairs and later on in
the month of November, 1994, the Assessee made a claim for refund
of the entire Excise duty between 1-1-1994 to 12-10-1994. The As-
sessing Authority however vide its order dated 7-8-1995 allowed
only a part refund to the extent of Rs. 84,70,749/- for the period
from 18-5-1994 to 12-10-1994 but disallowed the remaining claim on
the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Act stating that
the claim of refund was made beyond the period of six months limi-
tation as envisaged under Section 11B of the Act. Subsequently, a
Corrigendum to the order-in-original was issued on 14-9-95 stating
that the refund amount is admitted only to the extent of
Rs.51,49,421/- after adjusting the MODVAT Credit holding that the
clearances of Coin Blanks is exempted from payment of Excise duty.
Aggrieved by the same, the Assessee took the matter further to the
Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) who reject-
ed the Appeal vide order dated 18-3-1997 and the Second Appeal
filed before the Learned Tribunal also came be dismissed by the Or-
der dated 22-9-2004, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition
filed by the Assessee Steel Authority of India.
1 2. The reasons given by the Learned Tribunal for rejection of the said
claim on the ground of limitation was after distinguishing the Judgment of Cal-
cutta High Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Bata
Shoe Co. (P) Ltd., reported in 2004 (169) E.L.T. 3 (Cal.). The observations in para-
graph 12 of the Impugned Order of Tribunal are quoted below for ready refer-
ence.
“12. The appellants have relied on a recent decision of the Calcutta High
Court in the case of Batta Shoe Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) Cotton fabrics, covered by
the tariff item “friction cloth” was a raw material for the manufacture of
shoes. Duty of excise was not leviable on it prior to 1-8-1960. A Notification
dated 1-8-1960 issued by the department introduced levy on the item. Bata Shoe
Co. started making payments of duty from the said date under protest.
While so, they represented to Government of India, Ministry of Finance for ex-
emption from payment of duty on the fabrics and ultimately, on 26-9-1963,
the Central Board of Revenue informed them that no duty was payable on friction
cloth. On the basis of the Board’s letter dated 26-9-1963, the shoe company ap-
plied for refund of the duty paid on the fabric from 24-4-1962 to 17-6-1966. The
original authority rejected the claim for refund of the duty paid for the pe-
riod prior to 26-9-1963 and allowed refund for the subsequent period. The
rejection of the refund claim for the period prior to 26-9-1963 was chal-
lenged by the company and, ultimately, the dispute reached the High
Court. The question considered by the Court was whether the claim for the pe-
riod prior to 26-9-1963 was barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Ex-
cise Rules, 1944. The High Court found that the Board’s letter dated 26-9-1963
________________________________________________________________________
1 Paragraph number as per official text.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  95