1991 (3) TMI 253 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the appellants' refund claim on the grounds of limitation.
2. Compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. The validity of the Assistant Collector's order allowing discounts.
4. The impact of the High Court's order on the refund claim.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of the Appellants' Refund Claim on the Grounds of Limitation:
The appellants' refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the basis that they had not followed the procedure under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and thus the claim was hit by the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The learned Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that "unless the duties have been paid, on which refund is claimed, under protest, the same will be time-barred."

2. Compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The appellants argued that they had made payments under protest, as evidenced by their endorsement on the RT-12 returns and their correspondence with the authorities. The Assistant Collector's order dated 4-7-1986 acknowledged that the appellants had made payments under protest. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had complied with the necessary requirements under Rule 233B, including delivering a letter of protest and making endorsements on relevant documents.

3. The Validity of the Assistant Collector's Order Allowing Discounts:
The Assistant Collector's order dated 4-7-1986 allowed the appellants to clear machine tools after allowing discounts. This order was not appealed by the Department, thereby acquiring finality. The Tribunal observed that this order applied to past clearances and acknowledged that the payments were made under protest. The Tribunal held that another Assistant Collector could not invalidate the earlier order that had taken the payments as made under protest.

4. The Impact of the High Court's Order on the Refund Claim:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh remitted the matter back to the authorities for reconsideration, taking into account the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the High Court's order directed the authorities to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders, which implied that the authorities were to consider the question of duty and discounts with reference to the payments made.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' payments were made under protest and that the Assistant Collector's order dated 4-7-1986 had acquired finality. Therefore, the refund claims were not hit by limitation. The Tribunal set aside the order of the lower appellate authority and remanded the case to the original authority for working out the refund after verifying the endorsement in the records that the duty had been paid under protest. The appeal was allowed by remand in these terms.