2003 (1) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to claim refund for duty paid against confirmed demands not appealed against.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal arose from a common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The main issue raised was whether the appellant could claim a refund for duty paid against demands confirmed under orders-in-original that were not appealed against. The appellant argued that a previous Tribunal order in their favor on a similar issue entitled them to claim refunds for duty paid for different periods. The appellant relied on the decision in Samurai Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur and the Supreme Court decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. UOI to support their claim.

The Departmental Representative contended that without challenging the orders affirming duty demands for the relevant periods, the appellant could not claim a refund. The DR argued that the interpretation of Rule 233B by the Single Member in Samurai Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was incorrect. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Collector of Central Excise v. Flock India Pvt. Ltd., the DR emphasized that as long as the order confirming the demand stands, no refund claim could be sustained. The DR also highlighted that the Supreme Court decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. did not apply to the case at hand.

The Tribunal analyzed Rule 233B, which outlines the procedure for paying duty under protest. The Tribunal noted that the rule did not allow an assessee to claim duty paid under protest if they did not file an appeal against the order of adjudication. The Tribunal clarified that filing an appeal should be considered a protest against the demand, as per the Supreme Court decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. However, since the appellant did not appeal the orders confirming the demands, their claim for refund was rejected. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the authorities below and dismissed the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to claim a refund for duty paid against demands that were confirmed but not appealed against. The decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 233B and the lack of appeal filed by the appellant against the orders confirming the demands. The Tribunal's ruling aligned with the principle that filing an appeal should be considered a form of protest against the demand, which was not done by the appellant in this case.