1990 (5) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of 'Boards' under T.I. 16B (Plywood).
2. Refund claims for Central Excise duty paid on 'Boards'.
3. Application of Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
4. Applicability of the Indian Limitation Act.
5. Payment of duty under protest.
6. Legal authority for collection of duty.
7. Limitation period for refund claims.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of 'Boards' under T.I. 16B (Plywood):
The appellants manufactured Boards for captive consumption in the production of non-excisable goods. The Boards were classified under T.I. 16B (Plywood), and duty was paid accordingly. The appellants contested this classification, claiming that the Boards were non-excisable. The Assistant Collector initially rejected this contention, but the Appellate Collector upheld it, setting aside the Assistant Collector's order.

2. Refund claims for Central Excise duty paid on 'Boards':
The appellants claimed refunds for the duty paid on Boards from June 1964 to July 1974, amounting to Rs. 4,75,000/-. The refund claims were submitted in various letters, and the claim for the period prior to 17-10-1968 was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the grounds of limitation. The appellants argued that the duty was paid under protest and that the entire amount should be refunded.

3. Application of Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The Assistant Collector held that Rule 11 did not apply as the goods were not chargeable to excise duty. However, the refund claim for the period prior to 17-10-1968 was rejected due to the limitation prescribed under Rule 11. The appellants contended that Rule 11 did not apply to cases of unlawful levy or payment under protest.

4. Applicability of the Indian Limitation Act:
The appellants argued that the Indian Limitation Act did not apply to quasi-judicial authorities or Tribunals, relying on several Supreme Court decisions. They contended that the Excise Authorities could not retain the duty collected without authority of law, which would violate Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

5. Payment of duty under protest:
The appellants claimed that they paid the duty under protest, starting from 1-11-1971. However, the authorities found no evidence to support this claim. The letter dated 20-5-1964, purportedly submitted as a protest, was addressed to a non-existent officer, and no acknowledgment receipt was produced.

6. Legal authority for collection of duty:
The appellants argued that the duty was collected without authority of law and should be refunded. They relied on various Supreme Court decisions to support their claim that the limitation period should not apply to such cases. However, the Tribunal held that the authorities were bound by the provisions of the Act and the limitation prescribed therein.

7. Limitation period for refund claims:
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim for the period prior to 17-10-1968, citing the limitation prescribed under the Central Excise Act and Rules. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/s. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., which stated that claims for refund must adhere to the limitation period prescribed in the Act.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to prove that the duty was paid under protest and that the authorities were bound by the limitation period prescribed under the Central Excise Act. The appellants were advised to seek alternative remedies, such as moving the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

← Previous Next →