1989 (2) TMI 225 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:

1. Refusal of refund amounting to Rs. 9,01,129.79.
2. Validity of protest under Rule 233-B of the Central Excise Rules.
3. Classification of paper cones and tubes under T.I. 17(4) and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 66/82.
4. Time-bar of refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refusal of Refund Amounting to Rs. 9,01,129.79:
The appellants contested the refusal of a refund amounting to Rs. 9,01,129.79 by the Collector (Appeals). Initially, the Assistant Collector rejected this refund claim on the grounds that no proper protest was made and the claim was time-barred. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellants argued that their protest letter dated 3-3-1983 should validate their claim and exempt it from the time-bar under Section 11B.

2. Validity of Protest Under Rule 233-B of the Central Excise Rules:
The appellants argued that their letter dated 3-3-1983 constituted a valid protest under Rule 233-B, which should exempt their refund claim from the time-bar. They cited judgments supporting the view that Rule 233-B's provisions are directory, not mandatory. The department countered that the protest letter was not valid as it was filed before the approval of the classification list and did not specify grounds for protest. The Tribunal noted that the protest letter lacked essential details, such as the reason for the protest, and was filed before the classification list's approval.

3. Classification of Paper Cones and Tubes Under T.I. 17(4) and Eligibility for Exemption Under Notification No. 66/82:
The appellants initially classified paper cones and tubes under T.I. 68 but later revised this to T.I. 17(4) to benefit from the exemption under Notification No. 66/82. The Assistant Collector initially approved the revised classification but later reverted to the original classification. The Collector (Appeals) eventually ruled in favor of the appellants, classifying the products under T.I. 17(4). The appellants argued that this classification should apply retrospectively, covering the period for which they sought the refund.

4. Time-Bar of Refund Claims Under Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944:
The appellants contended that their protest letter dated 3-3-1983 exempted their refund claim from the six-month limitation under Section 11B. They cited judgments asserting that Section 11B does not require protests to follow specific procedural rules. The department argued that the protest was invalid as it did not comply with Rule 233-B and that the classification list approval rendered the protest void. The Tribunal acknowledged that while the protest letter was not ideally worded, it substantially complied with the requirements for a valid protest in the context of the pending appeal on classification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' protest letter dated 3-3-1983 constituted a valid protest for paper cones and tubes, given the pending appeal on their classification. Consequently, the refund claim for these products was not time-barred under Section 11B. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Collector to calculate the duty paid on paper cones and tubes during the relevant period and grant the consequential relief. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →