1992 (1) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds paper classification, limits refund eligibility to post-16-3-1988.

RAJ LAMINATES (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

The appeal concluded with the Tribunal upholding the classification of paper-based laminated sheets under Chapter 48 of the C.E.T.A., 1985. The appellants ... Classification Issues Involved:1. Classification of paper-based laminated sheets under the 1st Schedule to the C.E.T.A., 1985.2. Eligibility of the appellants to a refund of excess duty paid on the goods during specific periods.3. Time-bar applicability to the refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Paper-Based Laminated Sheets:The primary issue was whether the paper-based laminated sheets should be classified under sub-heading No. 3920.37 as rigid laminated plastic sheets or under sub-heading No. 4823.90. The lower authorities had classified the goods under sub-heading No. 3920.37, but the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Amit Polymers & Composites Ltd. v. C.C.E. Hyderabad, followed by other cases such as M/s. Meghdoot Laminart (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., established that the correct classification should be under Chapter 48. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the products under Chapter 48.2. Eligibility for Refund of Excess Duty:Following the re-classification of the goods, the appellants claimed a refund of excess duty paid during the periods from 17-2-1987 to 22-2-1988 and 11-3-1988 to 1-6-1988. The Tribunal noted that as per clause (3) of Section 11B, if an order in appeal or revision results in a refund of any duty, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise may refund the amount without requiring a claim. This provision aligns with Section 27(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, as discussed in the case of Premier Tyres Kalamassery v. Collector of Customs. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the refund of the entire excess duty paid during the specified periods.3. Time-Bar Applicability to Refund Claims:The issue of whether the refund claims were time-barred was contested. The Deputy Collector had rejected the refund claims as time-barred for the periods prior to 16-3-1988. The appellants argued that their classification should be retrospectively effective from 2-6-1988, and thus the refund claims should not be time-barred. The Tribunal was divided on this issue.The Judicial Member held that the question of time-bar was immaterial due to the re-classification, granting the refund for the entire period. However, the Technical Member disagreed, stating that the revised classification should be effective from 2-6-1988 and that the refund claims for periods prior to 16-3-1988 were barred by limitation. The Technical Member emphasized that the appellants had themselves classified the goods under Chapter 39 and did not dispute this classification until 2-6-1988. Consequently, the refund claims filed on 16-9-1988 were permissible only for the period from 16-3-1988 onwards.Majority Decision:The point of difference was referred to another Judicial Member, who agreed with the Technical Member, concluding that the refund is admissible only for the period from 16-3-1988 to 1-6-1988 under Section 11B, and the claims for periods prior to 16-3-1988 are barred by limitation.Final Order:In light of the majority decision, the appeal was disposed of, and it was held that the paper-based laminated sheets are correctly classified under Chapter 48 C.E.T.A., 1985. It was also held that the refund is admissible only for the period from 16-3-1988 under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the claim for the period prior to 16-3-1988 is barred by limitation.