2009 (2) TMI 172 - AT - Central Excise

Duty paid under protest Refund Period of limitation held that regarding amount of Rs. 27,800 has been debited in PLA and there is no mention of amount being paid under protest - In the absence of any protest of the payment of the duty, it cannot be presumed by the revenue that the said duty is paid under protest Regarding interest of pre deposit - appellant is eligible for interest from the date of pre-deposit of the amount as was directed and complied by him. To this extent the appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim for duty and adjudication levies paid under protest.
2. Rejection of refund claim for two specific payments - Rs. 27,800 and interest on pre-deposit of Rs. 4,56,000.
3. Dispute over payment of interest on the pre-deposit amount.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a refund claim by the appellants for duty and adjudication levies paid under protest. The case had two parts - one related to excisable products cleared without duty payment and the other to clandestine removal of goods. The CESTAT held that the process of crushing shikakai nuts into powder did not amount to manufacture, directing the refund of duty paid 'under protest' with interest. The Original Authority allowed the refund claim except for two specific payments, leading to the appeal.

2. Regarding the first payment of Rs. 27,800, the Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (A) rejected the refund claim as there was no evidence of it being paid under protest. The CESTAT upheld this decision, stating that since the appellant did not challenge the issue of payment being under protest before lower authorities, the rejection was legal. The appeal was dismissed concerning this amount and interest.

3. Concerning the interest on the pre-deposit of Rs. 4,56,000, the appellant claimed interest from the date of deposit, while the Adjudicating Authority stated interest was not payable on pre-deposit amounts. Citing a case precedent, the CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing interest from the date of pre-deposit as directed and complied with. The appeal was allowed on this issue.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of the refund claim, rejection of specific payments, and the dispute over interest on the pre-deposit amount, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and outcomes.