1990 (7) TMI 252 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of claim for refund under Central Excise duty due to classification list error and exemption notification omission.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background:
The appeal challenges the rejection of a refund claim under Central Excise duty due to an error in the classification list and omission of an exemption notification. The original classification list did not mention exemption under Notification No. 218/77, which was later included in a revised classification list. The claim relates to duty paid under protest from 30-7-1977 to 19-1-78, where the appellants were eligible for a 3% exemption under Notification No. 220/77 and an additional 2% exemption under Notification No. 218/77 for being a Small Scale Industries Unit.

2. Appellant's Argument:
The appellant's advocate argued that the error in not claiming the additional 2% exemption under Notification No. 218/77 in the original classification list should not affect their right to claim the exemption. He cited a Tribunal decision where it was held that a refund claim cannot be rejected solely because an exemption was not claimed in the classification list if the claim is made within the limitation period. The advocate emphasized that the exemption was admissible and had been granted for the subsequent period by the department.

3. Department's Position:
The department's representative contended that the exemption claimed was only in relation to one notification and that the additional exemption under the Small Scale Industries Unit was not indicated in the original classification list. He argued that the revised classification list could not relate back to the original date and that the claim was rejected on the grounds of timeliness.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal noted that the original classification list did not mention the claim under Notification No. 218/77 but the duty was paid under protest until the lists were approved. The Collector (Appeals) had earlier ruled that the plea of time bar was not valid and the refund claim should be adjudicated on its merits. The department agreed to a partial refund based on Notification No. 220/77 but denied the additional refund under Notification No. 218/77.

5. Legal Analysis:
The key issue was whether the failure to specify a particular exemption notification in the classification list would prevent the appellants from claiming the exemption they were eligible for during the relevant period. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions that held the benefit of exemption should not be denied solely because a specific notification was not mentioned in the classification list. It was emphasized that the appellants' declaration as a Small Scale Industries Unit should have alerted the department to the available exemptions.

6. Conclusion:
Considering all aspects, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the claim by the authorities below was not justified. The order denying the difference in refund amount claimed and admissible amount was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants for the specific amount they pressed for during the proceedings.

7. Final Decision:
The Tribunal clarified that the appeal was allowed only for the amount of Rs. 14,255.68, which was the specific claim pressed by the appellants during the proceedings.