1989 (11) TMI 192 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim as time-barred due to non-endorsement of duty paid under protest on gate passes.
2. Compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Applicability of consequential refund in the case.
4. Interpretation of provisions regarding duty paid under protest.
5. Precedent cases cited by the appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case is the rejection of the refund claim amounting to Rs. 1,22,637.03 as time-barred by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, due to the absence of endorsement of duty paid under protest on the gate passes. The appellant had filed a classification list and subsequently a refund claim, which was partially approved. The rejection was based on the technicality of non-endorsement on the gate passes despite indicating duty paid under protest in other documents.

2. The appellants argued that they substantially complied with Rule 233B by affixing the words 'under protest' on relevant documents, even though there was an omission on the gate pass. They contended that the procedural requirements were met, and the delay in approval of the classification list should not penalize them for a clerical error.

3. Another issue raised was the applicability of consequential refund, as the appellants believed that filing a refund claim was unnecessary since it was a result of the approved classification list. This argument aimed to challenge the time-barred rejection based on the nature of the refund claim.

4. The interpretation of provisions regarding duty paid under protest was crucial in determining the validity of the refund claim. The Collector analyzed past precedents, including the case law cited by the appellants, to establish that technicalities should not override the justness of the claim. The Collector referred to a CEGAT decision emphasizing that non-endorsement on certain documents should not automatically disentitle the claimant from seeking a refund.

5. The appellants relied on specific cases to support their arguments, highlighting instances where technicalities were not deemed as absolute barriers to refund claims. The Collector considered these precedents in conjunction with the facts of the case to conclude that the non-endorsement on the gate pass should not prevent the appellant from receiving the refund amount. Ultimately, the Collector set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.