1992 (4) TMI 153 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim for central excise duty paid on 'phosphoric acid I.P.'
- Rejection of refund claim as time-barred
- Misleading declaration in provisional assessment
- Applicability of Rule 233-B for payment under protest
- Comparison with relevant case laws

Refund Claim for Central Excise Duty:
The appellants, manufacturers of goods falling under Item 68, filed a refund claim for central excise duty paid on 'phosphoric acid I.P.' from 1-3-1980 to 30-6-1983. The claim was based on the exemption granted to their competitor under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. The claim was rejected due to a misleading declaration in their provisional assessment and was deemed time-barred.

Misleading Declaration and Time-Barred Claim:
The rejection of the refund claim was primarily due to a misleading declaration made by the appellants in their provisional assessment. The declaration implied that an appeal for exemption was pending, which was found to be incorrect as the appeal was filed by a different entity. The lower appellate authority upheld the rejection, citing the claim as time-barred.

Applicability of Rule 233-B and Payment Under Protest:
The judgment highlighted Rule 233-B, which governs the method of protest for payment under protest. The appellants failed to comply with this rule, which required specific procedures for marking payments under protest. The absence of proper compliance with this rule weakened the appellants' argument for refund.

Comparison with Relevant Case Laws:
The judgment compared the present case with relevant case laws to distinguish the circumstances. It cited cases where valid protests were made due to proper compliance with rules, unlike the misleading declaration in the current case. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate and valid grounds for protest in claiming refunds.

Conclusion:
Considering the sequence of events, misleading declaration, lack of compliance with Rule 233-B, and comparison with relevant case laws, the appellate tribunal confirmed the rejection of the refund claim. The judgment dismissed the appeal, finding no valid reason to interfere with the lower authority's decision.