2002 (3) TMI 698 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether the refund claim filed by M/s. Shree Shyam Filaments is time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s. Shree Shyam Filaments, manufactured synthetic filament yarn and paid differential duty under pressure from the Department. They filed a refund claim which was rejected as time-barred, as per Adjudication Order No. 55-Refd/99. The appellant argued that they paid the duty under protest, citing letters dated 5-10-95 and 5-12-95 as evidence of their disagreement with the levy of differential duty. They contended that the payment was made under coercive threats, akin to payment under protest. The appellant relied on legal precedents like India Cements Ltd. v. C.C.E. and argued that Rule 233B is only directory, not mandatory. They highlighted cases where substantial compliance with Rule 233B was deemed sufficient for payment under protest. However, the Respondent argued that the appellant did not follow the procedure outlined in Rule 233B, emphasizing the significance of delivering a letter to the proper officer stating the intent to pay duty under protest. The Respondent cited the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India to support the argument that the prescribed procedure must be followed for payment under protest.

The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and analyzed the relevant legal provisions. Section 11B(1) of the Act mandates that refund claims must be made within six months from the date of duty payment, with an exception for duty paid under protest. Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules outlines the procedure for paying duty under protest, including delivering a letter to the proper officer and making necessary endorsements. The Tribunal found that the letters dated 5-10-95 and 5-12-95 did not meet the requirements of a protest letter as they only conveyed the appellant's point of view without following the prescribed procedure. Even if considered as protest letters, there was no substantial compliance with Rule 233B. Citing legal precedents and the Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries case, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure for payment under protest. As the duty was not paid under protest in accordance with Rule 233B, the refund claim was deemed time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Therefore, the appeal by M/s. Shree Shyam Filaments was rejected based on the finding that the duty was not paid under protest in compliance with Rule 233B, rendering the refund claim time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.