1990 (5) TMI 147 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Classification of goods for exemption under Notification No. 80/80.
- Rejection of refund claims as hit by limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
- Treatment of duty paid under protest pending approval of classification list.
- Inclusion of refund amount in the assessable value of goods.

Classification of Goods for Exemption:
The appellants filed appeals against orders-in-appeal related to refund claims and exemption entitlement under Notification No. 80/80. The Collector (Appeals) rejected refund claims due to exceeding clearances value and inclusion of refund amount. The appellants claimed exemption under Notification No. 80/80 for clearances within the limit. The issue was whether the appellants were entitled to exemption and refund based on their classification list and clearances.

Rejection of Refund Claims:
The grounds of appeal in some appeals were similar, challenging the rejection of refund claims as time-barred under Section 11-B. The appellants argued they paid duty under protest pending approval of the classification list. The Collector (Appeals) held their procedure incorrect and should have opted for provisional assessment. The issue was whether payment under protest affects the time limit for refund claims under Section 11-B.

Duty Paid Under Protest:
The appellants paid duty under protest pending approval of the classification list. They contended that duty paid under protest should not be time-barred under Section 11-B. The Tribunal cited precedents where duty paid under protest exempted claims from time limitations. The appellants' appeals were allowed, emphasizing the need for provisional assessment in such cases.

Inclusion of Refund Amount in Assessable Value:
In one appeal, the issue was whether the refund amount given to the appellants should be considered part of the assessable value. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where duty collected from customers, including the refund, was to be included in the assessable value. The appeal on this issue was rejected based on the previous ruling.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals related to refund claims and rejection based on time limitations, emphasizing the validity of paying duty under protest. The inclusion of refund amounts in the assessable value was upheld based on previous decisions. The appellants' appeals were allowed in some cases and rejected in others, depending on the specific issues raised in each appeal.