2018 (4) TMI 1018 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - duty paid under protest - Held that - Protest in any form to the authorities is to be accepted unless until it is explicitly rejected - In the absence of any such correspondent from Revenue the finding of the lower authorities that this matter cannot be considered as an intimation for payment of duty under protest seems to be belated and mis-directed as during the relevant period duty liability on clearance of goods as per provisions of Central Excise Rules 2002 for the month needs to be discharged within five days of succeeding month In this case appellant had lodged protest of duty payment on 04.04.2016. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Appellant paid excise duty under protest for a specific period.
- Rejection of refund claim by lower authorities.
- Dispute regarding duty liability on coal extracted.
- Acceptance of protest letter by the department.
- Interpretation of protest registration.
- Appellant's submission of discharging excess duty under protest.
- Application of legal precedent in similar cases.

Analysis:

1. The appellant paid an amount as excise duty for a specific period but later filed a refund claim stating that the duty was paid under protest. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim, citing the rejection of a protest letter filed by the appellant. The issue revolved around the acceptance of the protest letter and the subsequent rejection of the refund claim due to the protest letter not being deemed acceptable. The duty liability was discharged by the appellant under protest, leading to the dispute over the refund claim.

2. The appellant argued that during the relevant period, the duty liability on coal extracted was not settled, with different interpretations prevailing. The appellant claimed that no duty liability needed to be discharged for the period in question. The lower authorities also did not accept the appellant's argument regarding unjust enrichment. The legal counsel highlighted the facts of the case and a specific letter informing the department about the duty being paid under protest.

3. The Departmental Representative (DAR) contended that the protest lodged by the appellant was not accepted by the department, emphasizing the procedural aspect of how protests should be registered. The DAR referred to the impugned order to support the rejection of the protest based on registration requirements. The issue of the acceptance of the protest by the department was a key point of contention in the case.

4. Upon considering the submissions from both sides, the tribunal found that the appellant had indeed discharged excess duty and had recorded a protest regarding the payment of such duty. The tribunal noted that the appellant's letter explicitly mentioned the payment of duty under protest to the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner. The tribunal emphasized that any form of protest to the authorities should be accepted unless explicitly rejected. The tribunal also referenced a legal precedent from the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court to support the acceptance of the appellant's protest in full force.

5. The tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside. It held that the duty in question was paid under protest, ultimately allowing the appeal. The tribunal's decision was based on the finding that the appellant had adequately communicated the protest regarding the duty payment, and the rejection of the protest by the lower authorities was deemed belated and misdirected. The application of legal precedents and the proper recording of protests played a crucial role in the tribunal's decision to allow the appeal.