K. Prakash Anand, Member (T)

1. This matter arises out of a revision application filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal No. 241/81 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras, in A. No. 60/81 (Madras) Gr. II/C. No. V/14HH/6/81 dated 14-9-1981. On the setting up of this Tribunal, this revision application had been transferred here and is now being treated as an appeal before us.

2. Briefly the facts are that the appellants are the manufacturers of fertilizers assessable under Item No 14-HH of the Central Excise Tariff. The manufacturers were availing of procedure under Chapter VII-A. Under this procedure, the assessee is required to file a monthly return within seven days of the close of each month with the proper officer. The proper officer is required to assess the duty on the goods removed and to complete the assessment on the basis of information contained in the returns filed by the assessee. The duty is determined and paid by the assessee under Rule 173-F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This is required to be adjusted against the duty assessable by the proper officer under Rule 173-I. By Notification No. 65/80-CE dated 7-6-1980 Urea and Di-Ammonium Phosphate manufactured by the appellants were exempted from the whole of the excise duty leviable on them. The appellants state that this notification was not received in time by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Tuticerin, on the 7th June and he insisted on the applicant paying duty before clearing the goods, pending receipt of the notification. A return in Form RT-12 as required by Rule 173-Q was filed for the month of June 1980 on 5-7-1980 and this assessment was completed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Tuticorin, on 22-8-1980. As per Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act (effective from 17-11-1980) 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. The "relevant date" has been defined in the section to mean the date of adjustment of duty after final assessment in a case where duty is paid provisionally under the Act or Rules. The appellants in this case applied for refund of duty paid during the period. On 5-12-1980 the refund application in the prescribed form was addressed to the Assistant Collector through the Superintendent of Central Excise. The Assistant Collector of Central Excises. Tuticorin division rejected the application on the ground that it was barred by time since it reached his office only on 13-1-1981 and that by that date the period of six months prescribed under Section11-B had expired. In appeal the Appellate Collector hold that the relevant date for purposes of time limit for claim of refund is the date of payment and not the date on which the duty paid was adjusted in the assessment and that the date for the receipt of the claim for refund pertinent to the issue of time bar is the date on which the Assistant Collector's office received the application. Accordingly, he also held the claim to be time barred.

2. The appellants have argued before us that the filing of the refund claim addressed to the Assistant Collector through the Superintendent was in accord with the existing practice. In this connection they have referred to a Trade Notice issued not by their own Collectorate but by the Central Excise Collectorate of Kanpur No. 206/1980 (All Excises No. 6/1980). This Trade Notice states that it has been brought to notice that filing of refund claims only with the Assistant Collector has put certain assessees in a disadvantageous position inasmuch as though the refund claims were filed by them within six months with the jurisdictional Superintendent, Central Excise, yet the limitation period of six months was calculated on the basis of the date of receipt of the claim by the Assistant Collectors resulting in the rejection of many claims has bee