1989 (9) TMI 279 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of refund claim on duty paid for padding solutions based on a letter of protest.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay involved the admissibility of a refund claim by manufacturers of padding solutions. The respondents had initially addressed a letter to the Department expressing their opinion that certain padding solutions were not excisable and would pay excise duty under protest. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim for duty paid on various products under the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector partially allowed the refund claim, stating that the letter of protest only covered duty paid on one specific product, DMEU. However, the Collector (Appeals) held that the letter of protest should be considered to cover all padding solutions, thereby allowing the entire refund claim. The main issue was whether the letter of protest could be deemed valid for all products or only for the specific product mentioned.

The JDR for the appellant argued that the letter of protest specifically referred to duty paid on DMEU and not on other products, which were not being produced by the respondents. He contended that there was no valid protest for goods that did not exist and that the respondents failed to express their protest in the classification list for other products.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents highlighted that the letter of protest encompassed all items and protested against the levy of duty on padding solutions in general. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of India Cement, where a similar letter of objection was considered a valid protest. He also referred to another Tribunal case supporting the same principle.

The Tribunal examined the letter of protest dated 16-11-1971 and concluded that the respondents had objected to the levy of duty on all products classified as padding solutions. They noted that the procedural requirement to express protest in subsequent classification lists was not mandatory at the time. The Tribunal found the reasoning of the Collector (Appeals) to be well-founded and upheld the decision, stating that the letter of protest was valid for all padding solutions. Therefore, the appeal by the department was rejected.