Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills LTD., Jalandhar

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is a statutory appeal against the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appel­ late Tribunal, under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). A sum of Rs.5,60,679.40 was sanctioned to the respondent on I 460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. A the basis of Notification No. 108/78 as an incentive for excess produc­ tion. On 18.5.1979, the said sum was credited to the Personal Ledger Account of the dealer. On 5th November, 1981, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a show cause notice asking the respondent to show-cause as to why the sum of Rs.66,306,62, granted in excess under the aforesaid notification, be not recovered from it. On 31. 7 .1982, the Asstt. Collector, however, held that there was no excess production because of wilful incorrect statement or suppres­ sion of facts by the respondent. In the premises, he held that the nofice was barred by lapse of time according to the statute and, accordingly, dropped the demand. On 6th October, 1982, the Collector of Central Excise, Chandi­ garh, while exercising his power under Section 25A{2) of the Act as it stood at the material time, issued a review show-cause notice against the order of the Asstt. Collector. The case was adjudicated thereafter by the Collector who found that the statutory time limit under Section D llA of the Act would come into play only where the demand is on account of the central excise duty short levied or not levied or refunded erroneously. Aggrieved thereby, on or about 9th October, 1987, the respon­ dent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed E the appeal. The propriety of the said decision is being sought to be challenged in this appeal. It appears that Section llA of the Act would come into operation only when the demand is on account of central excise duty short levied or not levied or refunded erroneously. In the instant case the issue was not for any of the said reasons. ' F It appears that where the duty has been levied without the authority of law or without reference to any statutory authority or the specific provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder have no application, the decision will be guided by the general law and the date of limitation would be the starting point when the mistake or the error comes to light. But in making claims for refund before the G departmental authority, an assessee is bound within four corners of the Statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder must be adhered to . The au­ thorities fun.ctioning under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act. If the proceedings are taken under the Act by the department, the provisions of limitation prescribed in the act will prevail. It may, how- H ever, be open to the department to initiate proceedings in the Civil C.C.E. v, DOABA CO-COPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS IMuKHARJI, J.] 461 Court for recovery of the amount due to the department in case when such a remedy is open on the ground that the money received by the assessee was not in the nature of refund. -This was the view taken by the Tribunal in a previous decision .in the case of Miles India Ltd. \•. The Asstt. Collector of Customs, but it was assailed before this Court. The appeal was withdrawn. This Court observed that the Customs Authorities, acting under the Act, were justified in disallowing the claim for refund as they were bound by the period of limit;ition proo vided therefor in the relevant provisions of the Customs Act; 1962. If really the payment of the duty was under a mistake of Jaw, the party might seek recourse to such alternative remedy as it might be advised. See the observations of this Court in Miles India Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector of Customs, [1985] E.C.R. 289. In the aforesaid view of the matter the Tribunal was right. The appeal, therefore, ha.s no merits and it is accordingly not entertained and dismissed. There is no order as to costs. N.V.K. Appeal dismissed. D.