1988 (6) TMI 121 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods for excisability, refund claims rejection, payment of duty under protest

Classification of Goods for Excisability:
The appellants were involved in construction work related to water cooling towers, converting timber logs into scantlings and plywood. The Assistant Collector classified these products as excisable under Item 68-CET. The appellants also filed refund claims for duty paid on these products. The issue revolved around whether the scantlings, after chemical treatment and drilling of holes, constituted new excisable products. The Tribunal referred to various legal precedents, including the decision in the case of M/s. Kutty Flush Doors and Furniture Company, to determine excisability. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that chemical treatment and drilling of holes did not create new excisable products, and thus, the scantlings were not excisable.

Refund Claims Rejection:
The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claims based on time bar and previous findings of excisability. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, emphasizing that the duty was paid under protest during the relevant period. The Tribunal directed a reevaluation of the refund claims to consider the protest payments and determine if the claims were time-barred. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of verifying the payments made under protest before deciding on the refund claims.

Payment of Duty Under Protest:
The appellants claimed to have paid the duty under protest, which was not thoroughly examined by the lower authorities. The Tribunal acknowledged the need to verify these protest payments, especially for the second, third, and fourth appeals. It directed the lower authorities to investigate the payments made under protest before making a final decision on the refund claims. The Tribunal allowed Excise Appeal No. 1434/85-D and remitted the other three appeals to the Assistant Collector for further review based on the protest payment contention.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants regarding the excisability of the goods and the reconsideration of the refund claims based on the protest payments. The judgment highlighted the significance of payment under protest and the necessity for a thorough examination of such payments in determining the eligibility for duty refunds.