2012 (10) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Refund duty paid under protest - rejection of the refund claim on the ground that the payment made under protest was not in accordance with provisions of Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules 1944 alleged that appellant nowhere mentioned that the appellant paid the duty under protest Held that - Demand was finally set aside by the Tribunal as time barred - no dispute that the challan dated 27-6-1998 vide which the appellant has paid Rs. 10,000/- has an endorsement duty paid under protest . This goes to show that the requirement that duty had been paid under protest is met in the case refund allowed - appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim as time-barred
- Compliance with Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules 1944
- Mention of duty paid 'under protest' in refund claim

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 10,000 as time-barred. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing ceramic products, had initially filed for a refund of Rs. 37,746 following a CEGAT order setting aside a demand. The lower adjudicating authority sanctioned a part of the refund but rejected Rs. 10,000 as time-barred. The appellant contested this decision, leading to the present appeal. The Revenue argued that the appellant did not follow the prescribed procedure of paying duty 'under protest' as per Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules 1944. However, it was noted that the appellant did mention 'duty paid under protest' on the challan for the disputed amount.

Upon review, it was found that a demand was initially issued in 1987, and subsequently, a corrigendum was issued in 1991, leading to the refund claim. The Tribunal had set aside the demand as time-barred due to procedural issues with the show-cause notice. The lower authorities rejected the Rs. 10,000 refund claim, citing lack of mention of payment 'under protest' in a specific letter. However, it was acknowledged that the appellant had indicated their intention to appeal against the demand confirmation order. Notably, the challan for the disputed amount did bear the endorsement 'duty paid under protest,' meeting the necessary requirement. Consequently, the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed unsustainable and set aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as per the law.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of time-barred refund claims, compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules 1944, and the mention of duty paid 'under protest' in the refund claim. The decision highlighted the importance of procedural adherence and documentation in such cases, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal and relief for the appellant.