1984 (7) TMI 276 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of duty paid on packing charges, applicability of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, limitation period for claiming refund, whether the payment of duty was made under protest, retrospective application of procedural amendments.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal regarding a claim for refund of duty paid on packing charges of superfine cement. The appellant contended that the duty was collected illegally and without authority of law. The appellant argued that Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules did not apply as the amount was not paid erroneously or inadvertently. The appellant also cited a previous case to support that limitation should not be applied in genuine cases. Despite the appellant raising questions about the legality of the duty on packing charges earlier, the excise authorities did not accept the contentions.

In the adjudication, it was held that the claim for refund was barred by limitation under Rule 11 as the duty payment was not made under protest. The order was confirmed in the appeal stage, leading to the matter being transferred to the Tribunal for further consideration.

During the Tribunal hearing, the main issue argued was the question of limitation. The appellant claimed that a letter dated 11-6-1974 constituted a protest, thereby stopping the limitation period under Rule 11. However, the Tribunal found that the letter did not clearly indicate a protest against the duty payment. It was noted that Rule 11, enacted after the duty payment period, applied to the claim for refund filed later. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural amendments apply retrospectively unless specified otherwise.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the claim for refund was indeed barred by limitation as the duty payment was not made under protest. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision that the claim for refund was time-barred.