2004 (2) TMI 138 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under compounded levy scheme.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (A) and the Asstt. Commissioner. The appellant sought a refund of Rs. 43,455 out of a total claim of Rs. 72,000 paid under a compounded levy scheme for duty liability. The claim was considered time-barred as it was filed after 6 months. The Commissioner (A) cited Section 11B, holding the claim as barred due to lack of payment under protest. The appellant argued that Rule 96ZB governs duty assessment under the scheme, allowing refunds for excess payments due to duty rate changes.

The Tribunal noted that Section 11B applies to duty refunds related to manufactured and cleared goods, not revenue deposits. Citing the Mafatlal Industries case, it clarified that Section 11B doesn't apply to revenue deposits. The appellant contended that Rule 96ZB mandates refunds for rate changes, including adjustments for payment quantum. As the Asstt. Commissioner had approved a part claim, the refundability of the amount was not in dispute.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' rejection of the part claim, allowing the appeal and ordering the refund claim approval.