1995 (2) TMI 165 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim dismissal on the grounds of being time-barred and unjust enrichment without prior notice.
2. Interpretation of letters by the appellants to the department as protests against duty payment.
3. Application of legal precedents to determine if the letters constituted a protest.
4. Consideration of absence of a formal procedure for lodging protests at the time.
5. Remanding the matter to the Assistant Collector for a decision on the refund claim.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a dispute concerning the dismissal of a refund claim by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, MOD IV, New Delhi, on the grounds of being time-barred and unjust enrichment without prior notice to the appellants. The appellants, through their advocate, argued that they had contested the duty payment requirement in letters to the Assistant Collector, indicating a protest against the duty payment. The advocate referred to legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in India Cements Ltd., to support their claim that the letters constituted a protest against the duty payment.

The Senior Departmental Representative contended that the letters from the appellants did not explicitly mention protest against duty payment. The Tribunal examined the content of the letters dated May 14, 1977, and May 19, 1977, where the appellants disputed the duty payment requirement and claimed entitlement to the benefit of a specific notification. The Tribunal compared the situation to the India Cements case and concluded that the appellants' letters could be construed as a protest against the duty payment, especially considering the absence of a formal procedure for lodging protests at that time.

Given the circumstances and the absence of a formal procedure for lodging protests, the Tribunal set aside the earlier order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for a decision on the refund claim based on its merits and in accordance with the law. The Tribunal also highlighted that the amended Section 11-B, which was in force at the time of the decision, required consideration of the unjust enrichment aspect. The appellants expressed confidence in establishing that they had not passed on the duty burden to their customers, making them eligible for the refund claimed.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision on the refund claim, taking into account the protest nature of the appellants' letters and the unjust enrichment aspect as per the amended Section 11-B.