1991 (7) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection by Assistant Collector and confirmation by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).
2. Reopening of the refund claim by Assistant Collector and considering the refund as profit in assessable value.

Analysis:
1. The appellants contested the rejection of their refund claim by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, which was upheld by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The claim pertained to excess duty paid under Tariff Item 14DD for the period from 18-11-1976 to 31-3-1978. The Assistant Collector sanctioned a partial refund of Rs. 48,336.38 out of the total claim of Rs. 84,197.20. The appellants argued that the duty paid under protest was refundable as per the decision in another manufacturer's case and contended that the rejection was unjustified.

2. The Assistant Collector reopened the refund claim, citing discrepancies in the capital investment made by the appellants. He considered a portion of the refund as profit, which needed to be included in the assessable value. The appellants challenged this decision, asserting that the previous Assistant Collector had already approved their claim, and the reopening was unwarranted. They argued that the refund claim was adjudicated under Section 11B of the Act and should not be treated as profit. The appellants relied on legal precedents to support their contention that the refund should be granted without considering it as profit.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the case and found that the Assistant Collector's decision to reopen the refund claim and treat a portion as profit was unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the duty payment was made under protest, and there was no dispute regarding the duty amount. The Tribunal emphasized that if the Revenue disagreed with the earlier decision, they should have appealed instead of reopening the case. Citing relevant legal judgments, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeal and granting them the refund for the excess duty paid under Tariff Item 14DD.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellants. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to legal procedures and principles in refund claim adjudication, emphasizing that duty paid under protest should be refunded without considering it as profit in the assessable value. The judgment underscored the significance of legal precedents in determining the outcome of such cases.