1999 (4) TMI 603 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim denied as Tribunal upholds duty payment under protest due to clearance value exemption.

WORKWELL ENGINEERING CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim for duty paid under protest by the appellants. The lower authority and Tribunal determined that the ... - Issues: Classification of product, Payment of duty under protest, Refund claim rejectionClassification of product:The case involved the classification of ghar ghanti cabinet without an electric motor manufactured by the appellants. Initially classified under Heading 85.09, the Assistant Collector modified the classification to Heading 84.79. The appellants later claimed classification under Heading 84.37, which was approved by the Assistant Collector without modification. This led to a refund claim for duty paid under protest due to the change in classification. The lower authority rejected the refund claim, stating that the duty was paid for exceeding the clearance value under an exemption notification, not due to incorrect classification. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing a previous judgment that protests based on exemption notifications cannot apply to grounds for refund based on classification.Payment of duty under protest:The appellants had paid duty under protest, indicating so on the TR-6 challan without filing a formal letter of protest. The learned JDR argued that without a formal protest letter, the payment could not be considered under protest as per Rule 233-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Additionally, the duty was paid due to exceeding the exemption value under Notification 175/86, not due to incorrect classification of the product. The Tribunal agreed with the JDR's submission, emphasizing that the payment under protest based on an exemption notification does not support a subsequent refund claim based on a different ground of classification.Refund claim rejection:The appellants filed a refund claim for the duty paid under protest after the Assistant Collector approved the classification under a different heading. The lower authority rejected the refund claim, stating that the duty was paid due to exceeding the clearance value under an exemption notification, not due to incorrect classification. The Tribunal upheld this decision, highlighting that the grounds for the protest based on the exemption notification could not be applied to the refund claim based on the classification of the product under a different tariff heading. Consequently, the appeal for the refund claim was rejected by the Tribunal.