2004 (11) TMI 485 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of excisable goods and refund claim procedures under Central Excise Act.
2. Interpretation of Rule 233B regarding lodging protest while making payment of duty.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a Reference Application by the Revenue under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act concerning the classification of excisable goods and a refund claim. The respondents, manufacturers of excisable goods, filed a refund claim for duty paid on five items classified as non-excisable, citing that the duty was paid under protest. The Assistant Commissioner approved the classification list but rejected part of the refund claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case back, emphasizing that the refund claim should be reconsidered due to the protest letter filed by the respondents and the approval of the classification list by the Department. The CESTAT rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that Rule 233-B is procedural and not mandatory, allowing the respondents to file the refund claim after the statutory period.

2. The crucial question of law arising from the Tribunal's order dated 1-5-1998 was whether Rule 233B, which pertains to lodging a protest while making duty payment, is procedural or mandatory. The Tribunal's observation that non-observance of Rule 233-B did not bar the respondents from filing the refund claim after the statutory period highlights the interpretation issue. The Tribunal allowed the Reference Application of the Revenue, referring the substantial question of law to the Hon'ble High Court for a decision on the nature of Rule 233B, whether procedural or mandatory, in the context of lodging a protest during duty payment.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the classification of excisable goods, the refund claim process, and the interpretation of Rule 233B under the Central Excise Act. It underscores the distinction between procedural and mandatory requirements, highlighting the implications for refund claims and the lodging of protests during duty payment. The decision to refer the question of law to the High Court reflects the complexity and significance of the issue for future legal interpretation and application in similar cases.