1990 (2) TMI 192 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of the product "rexin" under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and consequential relief of refund.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the classification of the product "rexin" under the Central Excise Tariff and the subsequent refund claim. The appellant claimed reclassification under Tariff Item 68, while the impugned order classified it under Tariff Item 19-(III). The issue revolved around the predominance of cotton content in the product, as it determines the classification under Tariff Item 19(III). The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including Collector of Central Excise v. Fenoplast (P) Ltd., to establish that the predominance of cotton content is crucial for classification. The product "rexin" was found not to be covered under Tariff Item 19(III) due to the composition of the fabric, leading to the conclusion that it should be classified under Tariff Item 68.

The next issue addressed was the period of refund concerning the reclassification of the product under Tariff Item 68. The appellant argued that a letter dated 6-11-1985 to the Collector of Central Excise should be considered a refund claim, entitling them to a refund of duty paid between May to November 1985. The appellant relied on various decisions to support their claim, emphasizing that the letter should be construed as a refund claim. The Department, however, contended that the letter was not a formal refund claim as per Section 11-B, as it was addressed to the Collector, not the Asst. Collector specified for refund claims. The Tribunal analyzed the contents of the letter and previous case laws cited by the appellant, ultimately determining that the letter did not constitute a refund claim but a representation for reclassification. The relevant date for refund computation was set as 26-2-1986, the date of the formal refund claim, entitling the appellant to a refund of excess duty paid in the six months preceding that date.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed, granting the appellant the consequential relief of a refund for the excess duty paid during the six months prior to 26th February 1986.