1995 (3) TMI 268 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether duty was paid under protest from the specified date.
2. Compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules 1942.
3. Validity of protest made on Gate Passes prior to the introduction of Rule 233B.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Collector of Central Excise against the order of the Collector (Appeals) who held that duty had been paid under protest from 20-11-1980 to 25-7-1982. The Assistant Collector had initially found that duty had not been paid under protest. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the protest letter was delivered on 24-10-1981. The Tribunal held that payment of duty under protest commenced from 24-10-1981, directing the Assistant Collector to decide the claim for refund accordingly.

2. The Appellate Tribunal discussed the essential requirement of Rule 233B, emphasizing the need for the assessee to file a letter signifying the intention to pay duty under protest. While acknowledging that some procedural requirements could be overlooked, the Tribunal stressed the necessity of filing a protest letter. The Tribunal disagreed with the argument that the department's failure to advise the respondent to file a protest letter was relevant. It was held that if the protest letter was delivered on 24-10-1981, duty payment from that date till the protest was vacated would be considered under protest.

3. The Editor's comments highlighted the introduction of Rule 233B in the Central Excise Rules in 1981, specifying the procedure for duty payment under protest. However, prior to this rule, the Tribunal had held in various cases that protests made on Gate Passes were valid. The Tribunal had also established that the procedure under Rule 233B did not apply to duty payments made before 1st June 1981. The settled position was that a protest once made would continue until the dispute was resolved, as per previous Tribunal decisions.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal modified the Collector (Appeals)'s order, determining that duty payment under protest began from 24-10-1981. The judgment emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedures for paying duty under protest and clarified the retrospective application of Rule 233B in the context of prior duty payments.