1998 (1) TMI 191 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Eligibility for refund of duty paid under protest.
3. Compliance with Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules for payment of duty under protest.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the classification of certain products by the Respondent under Tariff Item 68 instead of Tariff Item 15A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Respondent initially classified the products under Tariff Item 15A(1) but later revised the classification to Tariff Item 68 due to budgetary changes. The Asstt. Collector approved the revised classification list on 28-12-1983. The issue revolved around the refund claim filed by the Respondent for the differential duty paid between 29-3-1982 to 8-1-1984, with a portion being rejected as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) admitted the appeal subject to proof of payment under protest.

2. The Department contended that the duty paid during a specific period could not be considered as paid under protest as the endorsement on the classification list had been deleted by the Asstt. Collector. However, the Tribunal noted that the endorsement was present when the revised classification list was submitted on 18-8-1982 and was approved later. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Samrat International v. Collector, the Tribunal held that payment during the period pending final approval of the classification list is deemed as duty paid under protest. The Respondent's compliance with the rules and the necessity to pay duty under the existing classification until approval were crucial factors in determining the eligibility for refund.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the Respondent's actions were in line with the rules, as they continued to pay duty based on the earlier approved classification until the revised classification was finally approved. The provisional assessment of goods until the approval date of the revised classification was deemed valid, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the eligibility for refund of duty paid under protest.