1985 (11) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of duty on gunny bags; Compliance with Rule 233-B of Central Excise Rules, 1944; Approval of price list; Lodging refund claim; Payment of duty under protest; Endorsement on R.T.12 returns; Validity of protest letter; Compliance with Rule 173C(8); Non-endorsement of R.T.12 returns; Interpretation of Rule 233B.

Analysis:
The appellant's claim for a refund of duty on gunny bags was rejected by the Assistant Collector due to non-compliance with Rule 233-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Collector emphasized that duty had not been paid under protest as required by the rule. The claim was considered time-barred under Sec. 11B of the Act due to procedural discrepancies, including the form of the claim and the absence of endorsement on R.T.12 returns.

Upon appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the rejection, noting the failure to follow the proviso to Rule 233B and lack of acceptable evidence regarding the refund claim. The Collector emphasized that the price list approval without modification necessitated lodging a refund claim rather than paying duty under protest.

In the subsequent appeal, the appellant argued the existence of a valid protest, citing discrepancies in the Assistant Collector's timeline and highlighting the importance of the protest in claiming a refund under Sec. 11B. The appellant referenced legal precedents such as 'Bawa Potteries v. Union of India' to support their position on the protest's significance.

The Tribunal analyzed the arguments from both sides and found merit in the appellant's contentions. The Tribunal concluded that duty had indeed been paid under protest, despite minor procedural omissions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the protest letter and the endorsement on gate passes as evidence of payment under protest.

Regarding the non-endorsement of R.T.12 returns, the Tribunal deemed it a procedural issue rather than a substantive requirement. The Tribunal interpreted Rule 233B as directory rather than mandatory, given the endorsement on gate passes and the notice provided to the officer completing the returns.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for a determination of the refund claim on its merits, considering the observations made during the proceedings.