9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Refund claims rejection by Commissioner (Appeals) based on duty payment at the time of Bill of Entry presentation, dispute over duty liability, duty payment under protest, applicability of time-bar for refund, requirement of following Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules for duty payment under protest. Analysis: The appeals revolved around the rejection of refund claims by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning duty payment at the time of presenting the Bill of Entry. The appellants contended that since they contested the assessment order disputing duty liability, the duty payment should be treated as paid under protest, making the time-bar inapplicable. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, relied on the Supreme Court decision in Mafatlal Industries case, emphasizing the necessity of following Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules for duty payment under protest. During the hearing, the advocate for the appellants argued that filing an appeal against the assessment order inherently signifies a protest, citing relevant case laws to support their stance. They highlighted that the classification, initially rejected by the authority, was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), justifying the refund eligibility. The advocate also referred to previous Tribunal decisions reinforcing the notion that filing an appeal against a classification is a form of protest, warranting refund consideration without time-bar limitations. On the contrary, the S.D.R. reiterated the Supreme Court's position, emphasizing the non-applicability of duty payment under protest if Rule 233B procedure is not adhered to. The presiding judge, after considering the arguments from both sides, analyzed the Supreme Court's decision in the Mafatlal case and clarified that the absence of specific findings in the present case regarding certain apprehensions raised by the counsel differentiated it from the Supreme Court's ruling. Moreover, the judge highlighted the distinction between Customs Act and Central Excise Rules, asserting that the absence of a prescribed procedure for depositing duty under protest in the Customs Act aligns with the appellants' argument. Consequently, the judge set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, emphasizing that refund eligibility should not be denied based on time-bar if the claim is otherwise valid. The appeals were allowed accordingly, bringing clarity to the duty payment under protest issue and its implications on refund claims.
|
