1989 (4) TMI 221 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejected as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
2. Dispute over protest requirement under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules.
3. Jurisdictional conflict between Superintendent of Central Excise and Assistant Collector.
4. Inconsistencies in the lower appellate authority's order.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 1,19,611.47 by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 11B of the Act. The appellant contended that the refund application was filed within the prescribed 6-month period from the date of duty payment, thus disputing the rejection on limitation grounds.

2. The dispute also centered around the requirement of making a protest under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules. The appellant argued that the approved classification list, which claimed exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 118/75, did not necessitate a protest endorsement as the Assistant Collector had already approved the classification. The appellant's consultant contended that the protest requirement did not apply in this scenario.

3. A jurisdictional conflict arose between the Superintendent of Central Excise and the Assistant Collector regarding the denial of the benefit of Notification 118/75 to the appellant. The Superintendent's endorsement on RT 12 returns contradicted the Assistant Collector's approval of the classification, leading to confusion over the authority to grant the benefit claimed by the appellant.

4. The lower appellate authority's order was criticized for inconsistencies and self-contradictions. The appellant's consultant argued that the rejection of the refund claim was based on flawed reasoning, including the assertion that duty was not paid under protest, which was deemed irrelevant given the circumstances of the case.

5. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found that the appellant was entitled to the refund amount under the law. The Tribunal questioned the original authority's rejection of the claim on limitation grounds, emphasizing that the refund application was timely filed within the statutory period. The Tribunal also clarified the applicability of Rule 233B in the context of the approved classification and highlighted the jurisdictional overreach by the Superintendent in contradicting the Assistant Collector's approval.

6. Citing relevant case law, including Special Bench rulings and High Court decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant met the criteria for refund entitlement. The Tribunal set aside the lower appellate authority's order and allowed the appeal, directing the refund of the disputed amount to the appellant.