2009 (4) TMI 761 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 233B regarding payment under protest.
2. Requirement of a letter of protest for payment under protest.
3. Application of case laws in determining payment under protest.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Rule 233B concerning payment under protest. The revenue argues that the appellants did not fulfill the conditions prescribed under the rule, as they did not submit a letter of protest along with the endorsement "Excise duty paid under protest" on the invoices. Citing the Mafatlal case, the revenue contends that following the procedure under Rule 233B is crucial for a payment to be considered under protest. The Tribunal also refers to the Goodlass Nerolac Paints case, emphasizing the importance of compliance with Rule 233B for a payment to qualify as under protest.

2. The revenue further asserts that the absence of a letter of protest means that the duty payment cannot be considered as made under protest. They argue that the Tribunal erred in granting the benefit of protest to the appellant without the required letter accompanying the endorsement "Under Protest." However, the Tribunal, in line with the CCE, Mumbai v. Piramal Spg & Wvg. Mills case, held that the absence of a letter of protest does not alter the nature of duty payment made under protest. The Tribunal notes that the presence of the endorsement "duty paid under protest" is undisputed in the present case, indicating the intent to pay under protest.

3. In analyzing the application of case laws in determining payment under protest, the Tribunal finds that the precedents cited by the revenue do not align with the circumstances of the subject case. Despite the revenue's arguments based on previous judgments, the Tribunal concludes that the endorsement "duty paid under protest" suffices to establish the nature of the payment. The Tribunal rejects the revenue's contentions, upholding the validity of the payment made under protest in the absence of a separate letter of protest. Consequently, the ROM application by the revenue is dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the interpretation of Rule 233B, the necessity of a letter of protest for payment under protest, and the application of relevant case laws in determining the validity of the protest payment.