2000 (6) TMI 282 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim as time-barred under Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Factual Background: The appellants sent materials for job work, resulting in the emergence of waste methanol. The Revenue authorities demanded duty payment from the appellants as the job worker allegedly did not clear the waste material with duty payment. The appellants paid the duty under protest but later received certification that the job worker had paid the duty, leading to a refund claim filed in 1995.

2. Contentions of the Advocate: The advocate argued that the duty was paid twice, citing a Bombay High Court decision where it was held that refund should be granted when duty was paid under protest, even if procedural rules were not strictly followed.

3. Revenue's Position: The Revenue contended that the appellants violated Rule 233B by not submitting the protest letter before paying duty, as required by sub-rules 1, 2, and 3. The Revenue argued that the letter submitted after duty payment could not be considered a valid protest letter.

4. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether a protest letter submitted after duty payment could be considered valid under Rule 233B. It concluded that the sub-rules clearly mandated submitting the protest letter before paying duty, which was not done in this case, leading to a violation of sub-rule 8.

5. Decision: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the provisions of Rule 233B were violated, and the letter of protest could not be considered a valid refund claim. It distinguished the Bombay High Court decision, noting that it did not apply in this case where procedural rules were not followed before duty payment.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, the tribunal's assessment, and the final decision, providing a detailed understanding of the legal complexities involved in the case.