2001 (7) TMI 346 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the duty of Excise was paid under protest.
2. Whether the refund claim is time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
3. Compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the duty of Excise was paid under protest:
The Appellants, M/s. Ritspin Synthetics Ltd., contended that they paid the duty under protest. They debited the amount in their RG 23C, Part-II on 20th January 1998 and informed the Assistant Commissioner about the debit and their intention to claim a refund by a letter dated 20-4-1998. They argued that they had complied with Rule 233B by mentioning the payment under protest in RG-23C and RT-12 Returns and followed up with a letter in April 1998. They cited several judgments to support their claim that substantial compliance with Rule 233B is sufficient.

2. Whether the refund claim is time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act:
The Respondent argued that the refund claim filed in September 1998 was beyond the six-month period specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. They contended that the letter dated 20-4-1998 merely indicated an intention to claim a refund without stating any reasons and was not a valid letter of protest. They emphasized that the letter of protest must be submitted before the payment of duty and must state the grounds for the protest, as per Rule 233B.

3. Compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules:
The Tribunal analyzed the requirements of Rule 233B, which mandates that an assessee must deliver a letter of protest to the proper officer before paying the duty and must state the grounds for the protest. The Tribunal found that the Appellants did not submit a letter of protest before debiting the duty on 20-1-1998. The only letter submitted was dated 20-4-1998, which did not mention that the duty was paid under protest or provide any reasons for the refund claim. The Tribunal concluded that merely endorsing "duty paid under protest" in RG 23C, Part-II, without following the prescribed procedure, does not constitute substantial compliance with Rule 233B.

Judgment:
The Tribunal held that the Appellants did not comply with the mandatory requirement of submitting a letter of protest before paying the duty and providing reasons for the protest. Consequently, the refund claim filed beyond the six-month period was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.