JUDGMENT

FATHIMA BEEVI, J.:— This is an appeal under S. 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appeal is directed against the order dated 15-4-1988 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The appellant is the manufacturer of Hacksaw blades and Bandsaw Blades falling under Tariff Item No. 51 -A(iv) of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant filed a classification list as per Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules 1944 on 26-3-1985 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. 85/85 CE dated 17-3-1985. The aggregate value of the clearance in the preceding year i.e. 1984-85 did not exceed Rs. 75 lakhs. In the case of first clearance up to an aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 7.5 lakhs, the effective rates of duty is nil and in the case of next clearance of Rs. 7.5 lakhs, the duty is 3.75% ad valorem. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, approved the tariff rate 15% ad valorem on 3-6-1985 instead of the above effective rates as the appellant did not claim the exemption as per Notification No. 85/85 CE dated 17-3-1985 due to ignorance. A revised classification list with the effective rates in respect of the products with retrospective effect from 26-3-1985 was filed on 31-10-1985. The revised classification list was approved. The appellant claimed that they had paid excess Rs. 2,55,172.55 from I4-1985 to 31-8-1985 as excise duty. They made an application for refund as per rule under S. 11 B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on 30-10-1985.

2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his order dated 13-12-1985 sanctioned the refund claim only partly. For the period from 1-4-1985 to 27-4-1985, the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the same was time barred. The Assistant Collector held that the refund claim for the period 1-4-1985 to 27-4-1985 was time barred for the reason that under S. 11 B, the relevant date for preferring the claim for a case such as that of the appellant was the date of payment of duty and, according to him, the duty had been paid by adjustment in the personal ledger account as and when goods were removed. The plea of the appellant is that mere debiting in the personal ledger account should not be taken as the starting point for limitation and the relevant date should be the date on which RT-12 Returns which are filed on a monthly basis are assessed. The order of the Assistant Collector was confirmed in the appeal by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The further appeal to the Tribunal was also unsuccessful.

3. The question that arises for decision in the appeal is as to the starting point of limitation for filing an application Under S. 11 B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. S. 11 B so far as it is material reads as under:-

"11 B. Claim for refund of duty.- (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the relevant date.

Provided that the limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest.

...........................................

Explanation/- For the purposes of this Section,-

(A) ..................................

(B) "relevant date" means,-

(a) to (d)

(e) in a case where duty of excise is paid provisionally under this Act or the rules made thereunder, the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof;

(f) in any other case, the date of payment of duty."

4. The appellants contention before the authorities was that the date of assessment would be the date of payment of duty within the meaning of clause (f) above. We agree with the learned Solicitor General that this argument is not tenable. Where an assessee maintains a personal ledger account, duty is paid by way of debit therein and goes to reduce the amount of deposit paid b