1990 (4) TMI 133 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Collector
2. Approval of classification list by Assistant Collector
3. Time-barred refund claim

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Collector
The appellants filed a refund claim amounting to Rs. 96,682.95, as they believed they overpaid Central Excise duty on woollen yarn manufactured. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector initially, but on appeal, the case was remanded, and the refund claim was partly allowed by the Assistant Collector. However, the appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ajmer led to the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of being time-barred.

Issue 2: Approval of classification list by Assistant Collector
The classification list submitted by the appellants mentioned their product as "Processed yarn" with a specific tariff description and duty rate. The Assistant Collector approved this classification list without considering the protest letter submitted by the appellants against the higher tariff value. The Assistant Collector's failure to take the protest letter into account during the approval of the classification list led to a dispute regarding the validity of the protest letter and its impact on the time limitation for the refund claim.

Issue 3: Time-barred refund claim
The Collector (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, stating that the refund claim was time-barred due to the approval of the classification list and the lapse of four years before the claim was filed. However, the appellants argued that the protest letter submitted before the approval of the classification list should have been considered, and the time limit for filing the refund claim should not apply in this case. Citing precedents and the saving clause of the erstwhile Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, the appellants contended that the refund claim was not time-barred.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the decision of the Collector (Appeals) and reinstating the order of the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal held that the refund claim was not time-barred, emphasizing the significance of the protest letter filed before the approval of the classification list and the failure of the approving authority to consider the protest. The case law and precedents cited supported the appellants' argument that the time limit did not apply under the circumstances, leading to the favorable decision for the appellants.