1991 (9) TMI 224 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of refund claims filed after six months from the date of duty payment.
- Compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules regarding filing of protest letter.
- Proper officer for receiving the letter of protest.
- Justification of rejection of refund claims as time-barred.
- Substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 233B.
- Consideration of claims on merits.

Analysis:

The case involved three appeals against the order rejecting refund claims filed after six months from the date of duty payment. The appellants contended that the duty payments were made under protest, but the authority held that the protest letter was not valid under Rule 233B as it was not filed before the proper officer. The appellants also failed to indicate the protest when filing the revised classification list claiming exemption. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the rejection of refund claims. The main issue was the compliance with Rule 233B regarding the filing of the protest letter before the proper officer.

During the hearing, the appellants were not represented, and they requested the decision based on their appeal memos. The Ld. SDR argued that the protest letter was not filed before the proper officer, the Assistant Collector, as required by Rule 233B. The letter dated 31-12-1985 was filed before the Superintendent and acknowledged by the Inspector, not the Assistant Collector. Therefore, the lower authorities were justified in rejecting the claims as time-barred.

Upon considering the submissions and the content of the letter dated 31-12-1985, it was revealed that the appellants indicated in the letter their intention to pay duty under protest until the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 25/84 was granted. The letter was filed before the Superintendent along with the revised classification list seeking exemption. The Assistant Collector approved the revised list effective from 8-1-1986. The Tribunal found that filing the protest letter before the Superintendent, along with the revised list, constituted substantial compliance with Rule 233B.

The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities were not justified in dismissing the protest letter as not saving the limitation. The orders were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector for consideration of the claims on merits and to pass orders in accordance with the law. All appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of substantial compliance with procedural requirements in excise matters.