1986 (9) TMI 279 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Refund applications rejected on grounds of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
- Entitlement to relief in respect of duty paid on equated freight charges.
- Interpretation of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
- Legal position on refund claims filed beyond the prescribed time limit.

Analysis:
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS dealt with the rejection of refund applications by the appellants, who were manufacturers of bicycle chains, industrial, and automotive chains, for duty paid in the years 1981 and 1982. The refund claims were dismissed by the authorities citing limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants contended that they became aware of their entitlement to relief only after a Supreme Court judgment in the Bombay Tyre International case. They argued that the duty paid on equated freight charges should be refunded as it was collected illegally. However, the tribunal noted that the refund claims were time-barred as per the findings of the original authority, and the alleged protests against duty payment did not conform to Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, which specifies the procedure for protesting duty payment.

The tribunal emphasized that adherence to Rule 233B is crucial, and any deviation renders the protest ineffective. The appellants' argument that procedural infractions should not affect their rights was deemed legally untenable. The tribunal highlighted that the absence of a specific plea or evidence regarding protests against duty payment further weakened the appellants' case. It was reiterated that a plea not taken cannot be considered, and without compliance with procedural requirements, the refund claims were rightly rejected as time-barred. The tribunal clarified that even if duty was collected erroneously, a statutory tribunal cannot grant a refund beyond the prescribed time limit, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal procedures and time limits for filing refund claims.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that the refund claims were rightly rejected due to being time-barred and lacking compliance with Rule 233B. The judgment underscored the significance of following legal procedures and filing refund applications within the stipulated time frame, regardless of the circumstances of duty collection.