1997 (5) TMI 293 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of rubberised cotton fabrics, refund claim rejection, jurisdiction to decide refund claim based on Tariff Advice post High Court's decision.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Collector of Central Excise against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) in favor of the respondent, setting aside the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 5,61,580.21. The dispute arose regarding the classification of rubberised cotton fabrics manufactured by the respondent. The Department contended classification under Tariff Heading 19-I(b), while the respondent claimed classification under Tariff Item 16A(2) with exemption under Notification No. 71/68. The High Court of Calcutta, in 1989, rejected the respondent's Writ Petition challenging the classification and refund claim, stating that the products should be classified under Item No. 19(I)(b) and the dispute had no merit. The respondent accepted the High Court's decision, making it final.

Subsequently, the respondent filed a refund claim again in 1989 based on a Tariff Advice of 1984, which settled the classification in their favor under Tariff Item 16A(2). The Assistant Collector rejected the claim based on the High Court's decision. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's order, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication considering the Tariff Advice. The Department appealed this decision before the Tribunal.

The Department argued that the High Court's decision on classification and refund had attained finality, making it impermissible to revisit the issue based on the Tariff Advice issued after the High Court's decision. They contended that the Assistant Collector rightly rejected the refund claim. Conversely, the respondent argued that the Tariff Advice was not considered by the High Court and should be taken into account for the refund claim.

The Tribunal analyzed the case, noting that the High Court's decision in 1989 had finalized the classification and refund issues against the respondent. The subsequent Tariff Advice of 1984 could not be used to reopen settled matters. The Tribunal held that the Assistant Collector was correct in rejecting the refund claim based on the finality of the High Court's decision. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Collector (Appeals) order and restored the Assistant Collector's decision, allowing the Department's appeal.