2009 (5) TMI 958 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Duty liability on captively consumed polyester chips, determination of duty liability, imposition of penalty, time limitation for filing refund claim.

The case involved the non-discharge of duty liability on polyester chips captively consumed in the manufacture of polyester stable fibre during specific months. The duty amount was paid later, but a higher duty liability was confirmed along with a penalty. The lower appellate authority remanded the case for re-consideration due to incorrect determination of the value of polyester chips. The Additional Commissioner re-determined the duty liability, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing time limitation as the claim was not filed within the statutory period of six months from the date of payment.

The Appellate Tribunal considered the absence of a formal protest letter as per Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules. However, based on precedents like Nice Foto Lab Vs. CC, Chennai, CCE, Aurangabad Vs. BCL Forgings Ltd, and Overseas Trading Corporation Vs. CCE, New Delhi, the Tribunal treated the appeal against duty confirmation as a protest. Relying on the case laws cited by the appellants' counsel, the Tribunal concluded that the refund claim was not time-barred. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely filing refund claims in excise duty matters and the applicability of legal precedents in determining the admissibility of such claims despite procedural formalities.