V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)

1. The appellants M/s. Nagarjuna Steels Limited, applied for refund of Rs. 3,10,603.47 and Rs. 16,465.29 paid as duty during the period June 1977 to May 1978 and 29-5-1978 to 31-5-1978 respectively. With reference thereto a show cause notice was issued to them on 15-6-1978 calling upon them to explain why the refund should not be restricted to the period of six months before the date of their application for refund. The appellants pleaded That since their refund was on the basis of the incentive relief under Notification No. 198/76, dated 16-7-1978 they were entitled to relief in full and in any event the amendment to Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules restricting the period to six months came into effect on 6-8-1977 only but that as the claim related to anterior period also they were entitled to full relief. The Assistant Collector under his order dated 12-9-1978 rejected the contentions of the appellants 'and ordered that the relief be restricted to the period of six months prior to the date of application for refund, in terms of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The said order was confirmed by the Appellate Collector under his order dated 3-6-1979. The appellants preferred a revision petition to the Government which, on transfer, is being dealt with and disposed of under this order as an appeal.

2. We have heard Shri D.N. Kohli, Consultant for the appellants and Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Senior Departmental Representative for the respondent Collector.

3. Shri Kohli contended that from the working instructions contained in the Nagpur Collectorate Trade Notice No. 41/76, dated 25-6-1976 giving details of the scheme under Notification No. 198/76 the appellants understood that the applications for claiming relief under Notification No. 198/76 were to be made at the end of the financial year only and that is why they approached the Assistant Collector in April 1978 only. He referred to paragraphs 4 and 12 of the Notice and also to the tabular column in the Annexure thereto as supporting this contention. But, as pointed out by Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, the appellants were entitled to relief from the date of their first clearance itself, since the factory commenced production in June 1977 only and, in terms of paragraph 6(c) of the Notice itself, in respect of such factories the base clearance will be "NIL". That would mean that they could take advantage of the relief under the Notification from their first clearance itself and pay the reduced duty only. The contention of Shri Kohli that the appellants were to wait till the end of the financial year before approaching the Assistant Collector for passing orders declaring them entitled to relief under the Notification, is, therefore, not acceptable.

4. That would mean that from the date of the initial production itself the appellants were entitled to claim relief under the notification and clear their goods taking benefit under the Notification. If they had not done so, and had been paying duty at the normal rate, they would be entitled to claim refund of the excess paid, under the relevant provision entitling them to claim such refund. The said provision was, at the relevant time, Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. Acting under the said rule the Assistant Collector had granted refund limited to a period of six months preceding, the date of their application, which was 20-4-1978. But Shri Kohli contends that the period for which relief was claimed is 8-6-1977 to 31-5-1978 and since the period of limitation under Rule 11 was reduced to six months by virtue of the amendment which came into effect on 6-8-1977 only, the said rule should not have been applied with reference to the claim of the appellants. In this connection, he relied on the decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Universal Drinks Private Limited v. Union of India MANU/MH/0175/1984 : 1984 (18) E.L.T. 207 (Bombay). But Shri Lakshmi Kumaran contends that the refund applicati