1989 (4) TMI 222 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim denied for duty payments at factory - separate compliance required for distinct licenses

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of a refund claim for duty payments at a Coimbatore factory, deeming it time-barred under section 11B of the Central ... Refund Issues:Classification of paper tubes at different factories, validity of protest for duty payments, applicability of limitation period for refund claims, relevance of section 11B(3) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, interpretation of Tribunal's decision in Collector of Central Excise v. M/s Stewarts & Lloyds of India Limited.Analysis:The appeal concerned the classification of paper tubes at two factories owned by the same company in Tamilnadu, leading to a dispute over duty payments. The appellants protested the classification at the Virudhunagar factory but not at the Coimbatore factory, assuming a single protest would suffice due to common ownership. The claim for refund was rejected as time-barred by the Assistant Collector and upheld by the Collector (Appeals) due to being filed after the six-month limitation period under section 11B of the Act.During the hearing, the appellants argued that a Tariff Advice accepting their classification claim supported their position. They contended that the protest at Virudhunagar factory should apply to Coimbatore factory as well. However, the absence of the classification list and protest letter on record weakened their argument. The appellants also cited a Tribunal decision to support their case.In response, the respondent highlighted that the appellants had acknowledged an appealable order for the Coimbatore unit's classification, which was not challenged. The appellants disputed this claim, stating there was no appealable order for Coimbatore. The Tribunal noted that the two factories operated under separate licenses, necessitating compliance with excise laws independently, including filing refund claims within the prescribed time limit.The Tribunal rejected the appellants' arguments, emphasizing that the protest at one factory did not cover duty payments at the other factory. Section 11B(3) was deemed irrelevant as no appeal or revision order triggered a refund obligation. The Tribunal also dismissed the relevance of a prior decision involving protests against steel manufacturers, as it did not align with the present case's circumstances.Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the refund claim for Coimbatore factory's duty payments was rightly rejected as time-barred, affirming the decisions of the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals). As a result, the appeal was dismissed.