2005 (10) TMI 322 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing respondent's appeal; rejection of refund claim as time-barred; interpretation of duty payment under protest; applicability of Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) where the Respondent's appeal was allowed. The Respondents were directed to deposit an amount as duty against a show cause notice, which they did under protest. The refund claim for this amount was rejected by the adjudicating authority as time-barred. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on the principle that duty paid while filing an appeal to contest liability is considered payment under protest, citing relevant case laws. The Commissioner held that the refund claim was filed within the permissible time frame of six months from the date of receipt of the appellate order issued in the Respondent's favor. The Commissioner correctly interpreted the law involved in the issue, emphasizing that the duty paid under protest pending adjudication proceedings cannot be denied to the Respondent based on procedural technicalities like not filing a protest letter under Rule 233B. The provisions of Rule 233B were deemed inapplicable in this case.

The judgment highlighted that the amount was deposited by the Respondent under protest, and the duty rightfully due to them cannot be withheld due to procedural issues. The judgment emphasized that the provisions of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, do not apply in this context. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed appropriate and deserving of affirmation, while the Revenue's appeal was to be dismissed. The judgment underscored the significance of interpreting duty payment under protest and ensuring that legitimate dues are not denied to the taxpayer based on technicalities, ultimately upholding the principles of fairness and justice in tax matters.