Refund retention depends on lawful levy and approved classification; notional duty cannot justify deduction before assessment.

Departmental retention from a refund was permissible only where the amount was legally payable under a lawful levy and assessment framework. For the period before an approved Item 68 classification existed, a hypothetical duty liability could not justify deduction from the refund because no lawful classification list or completed assessment supported recovery; retention was therefore not justified. After the Item 68 classification list was filed and approved from 16-4-1981, the self-removal scheme required duty to be paid under that approved classification, and the Department could retain the corresponding amount as a sum due to Government.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Department could retain, from the refund otherwise due, an amount corresponding to duty allegedly payable under Tariff Item 68 for the period before the goods were brought within the approved Item 68 classification; (ii) whether retention of such amount was permissible for the period after approval of the Item 68 classification list.

Issue (i): whether the Department could retain, from the refund otherwise due, an amount corresponding to duty allegedly payable under Tariff Item 68 for the period before the goods were brought within the approved Item 68 classification.

Analysis: The refund claims related to duty paid under protest under Item 16B, and the earlier levy under that item had already been held unsustainable. The statutory scheme under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Rules 173B, 173F, 173G and 173I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 contemplates levy and collection only through a lawful classification and assessment process. For the relevant earlier period, no approved classification list or completed assessment under Item 68 existed, and the Department could not treat a hypothetical liability as an amount lawfully due. Section 11 permits deduction only of sums legally payable to Government, and Section 11A governs recovery of short levy or short payment through notice; neither supported retention on the facts.

Conclusion: The retention of an amount equal to Item 68 duty for the period up to 15-4-1981 was not justified and the appeal succeeded to that extent.

Issue (ii): whether retention of such amount was permissible for the period after approval of the Item 68 classification list.

Analysis: Once a classification list for Item 68 had been filed and approved with effect from 16-4-1981, the self-removal procedure required duty to be paid in accordance with that approved classification. In that situation, duty became legally payable under the statutory scheme, and Section 11 authorized recovery or deduction of sums due to Government. The Department was therefore entitled to retain an amount corresponding to the duty chargeable under Item 68 for the subsequent period.

Conclusion: The retention of an amount equal to Item 68 duty from 16-4-1981 onwards was upheld and the appeal failed to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in part, with refund directed for the period when no lawful Item 68 levy existed, but the Department's deduction was sustained for the later period after Item 68 classification was approved.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental deduction from a refund is permissible only to the extent that the amount is shown to be legally payable under a lawful levy and assessment framework; a mere notional liability or unassessed tariff item cannot justify retention, but once an approved classification brings the goods within the duty net, recovery under the statutory mechanism becomes valid.

---