1997 (9) TMI 174 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim for Handloom Cess based on compliance with Rule 233B and substantial compliance with the provisions.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved the appellants, engaged in the manufacture of cotton fabrics, filing a refund claim for Handloom Cess amounting to Rs. 62,356.84 for the period from 1-8-1984 to 31-12-1985 and another claim for Rs. 63,035.98 for the period from 3-1-1986 to 30-8-1986. The Assistant Collector sanctioned a partial refund but rejected a significant amount. The appellants appealed to the Collector (Appeals), who upheld the rejection, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The key contention raised by the respondent was that the appellants failed to comply with Rule 233B, which outlines the procedure for payment of duty under protest. The respondent argued that the appellants did not follow the prescribed procedure, such as endorsing the necessary returns indicating payment under protest and filing a detailed appeal or representation within the stipulated time frame of six months. Consequently, the refund claim was rejected by the lower authorities.

Upon considering the submissions and relevant case law, the Tribunal addressed the issue of filing a letter of protest before the Superintendent of the Range. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments, including one where it was held that filing a protest letter with the Superintendent, who is part of the Assistant Collector's office, should be deemed as filed before the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal emphasized substantial compliance with Rule 233B, citing precedents where similar actions were deemed acceptable.

Citing previous cases, the Tribunal reiterated that filing a protest letter with the Superintendent constituted substantial compliance with Rule 233B, and the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act did not apply as the duty was paid under protest. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal held that the refund claim should be allowed, subject to the rulings of the Apex Court in a specific case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the refund claim for Handloom Cess was admissible due to substantial compliance with Rule 233B and following established precedents.