1989 (3) TMI 216 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claims on repairing of cops filed by respondent company.
2. Alleged rejection of refund claims by Assistant Collector.
3. Compliance with Rule 233B and Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
4. Disposal of refund claims and procedural fairness by Assistant Collector.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1:
The six appeals filed by the department pertain to refund claims of the respondent company for repairing cops subsequent to a Tribunal order. The repairing of cops was held not to attract excise duty, akin to retreading old tires. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication by the Collector, Central Excise, Meerut.

Issue 2:
Despite the Tribunal's order binding on the subordinate authority, the Assistant Collector issued show cause notices questioning refund claims for specific periods. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claims as time-barred under Section 11B(1) of the Act, citing lack of protest letters and timeliness.

Issue 3:
The department argued non-compliance with Rule 233B, emphasizing the necessity of lodging a protest and filing appeals against classification lists. The respondent company contended that the limitation period under Section 11B(1) does not apply when duty is paid under protest, citing a clear mention of protest grounds in their correspondence.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal found the rejection of refund claims unjustified. The Assistant Collector's objection regarding de novo adjudication was deemed untenable. The respondent company consistently paid duty under protest, and the Assistant Collector's hasty rejection without considering replies or evidence was criticized for lacking natural justice principles.

Conclusion:
The lower appellate authority rightly allowed the respondent company's appeals against the rejection of refund claims. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeals, emphasizing the validity of the protest and the duty paid under protest. The delay in settling refund claims post the CEGAT orders led to a directive for the Asstt. Collector to settle the claims within two months.