1991 (3) TMI 254 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff
2. Validity of protest letter for refund claim under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules
3. Interpretation of duty payment under protest after final adjudication

Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff:
The appellant, a manufacturer of HDPE woven sacks, sought classification under Tariff Item 15A(2) as 'Articles of Plastics,' while the Department classified the goods under Tariff Item 68. After a series of orders and appeals, the Special Bench of the Tribunal held in favor of the appellant, classifying the goods as 'Articles of plastics' under Item 15A(2) of the C.E. Tariff. The appellant then claimed a refund for the period in question, disputing the rejection based on limitation grounds.

Validity of protest letter for refund claim under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules:
The appellant contended that their protest letter dated 5-5-1978, acknowledged by the Department, should be considered a valid protest under Rule 11, entitling them to a refund. The appellant argued that Rule 11 did not specify a particular form for lodging a protest, and they consistently endorsed protest in R.T. 12 returns. The Tribunal analyzed the contents of the protest letter, the acknowledgment by the Department, and the classification issue's final decision in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal held that the protest letter, along with the endorsement in R.T. 12 returns, constituted a valid protest, allowing the appellant's claim for refund.

Interpretation of duty payment under protest after final adjudication:
The Tribunal further deliberated on the concept of duty payment under protest after final adjudication. The Tribunal noted that at the relevant time, there was no specific rule for payment under protest, but Rule 11 mentioned that duty paid under protest would not be subject to limitation. The Tribunal considered the appellant's plea that duty could be paid under protest even after an adverse order by the appellate authority, citing fairness and the need to keep rights alive. The Tribunal referred to the later introduction of Rule 233B for clarity on payment under protest. It concluded that the appellant's protest letter manifested the intention to pay duty under protest, and subsequent payments were deemed under protest. The Tribunal criticized the lower authority for disregarding the protest letter's relevance and held that the appellant's appeal should be allowed, emphasizing the importance of recognizing the right to pay duty under protest even after adverse orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant's claim for refund for the specified period and emphasizing the validity of the protest letter and subsequent duty payments made under protest.