2006 (1) TMI 508 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim for the period February 2001 to February 2002.
2. Validity of protest for reversal of Cenvat credit.
3. Treatment of appeal pendency as a valid protest.
4. Compliance with Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
5. Time-barred refund claim.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for the period February 2001 to February 2002 due to the denial of Cenvat credit on waste cleared without duty payment. The appellant reversed the credit under protest, leading to the current dispute.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund of duty amounting to Rs. 4,88,480, acknowledging the valid protest made by the assessee after the credit reversal. However, the refund for other amounts was not granted as a valid protest was not registered for those reversals in the Cenvat account, prompting the current challenge.

3. The appellant argued that they had validly protested the reversals of credit by sending letters to the Assistant Commissioner via courier, complying with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules. They contended that the appeal pending before the Tribunal against a similar credit denial should be considered a valid protest, asserting that the refund claim was not time-barred.

4. The Respondent contended that the pendency of an appeal for an irrelevant period cannot serve as a valid protest for the relevant period. They argued that the reversals of credit lacked a valid protest as per Rule 233B, emphasizing the requirement for physical submission of protest letters with department acknowledgment.

5. The Tribunal found that the protest for certain credit reversals was valid as the appellant had substantially complied with the protest procedure. The acknowledgment of protest letters sent via courier was tacitly accepted. However, for a specific amount of duty refund, the Tribunal ruled against the appellant, stating that the appeal pendency did not constitute a valid protest for the relevant period, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order except for the claim related to a specific duty refund amount, thereby partially allowing the appeal.