1997 (7) TMI 359 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim upheld under Central Excises Act

The judgment overturned the Assistant Collector's refusal of a refund claim based on the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excises Act, ... Refund - Protest - Limitation Issues:Refusal of refund claim by Assistant Collector based on limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excises Act, 1944.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the rejection of a refund claim by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, which was based on the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excises Act, 1944. The dispute stemmed from the appellants debiting duty of Rs. 1,38,655/- under protest on 26-3-1991, following a communication from the Range Superintendent dated 14-3-1991. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim on the grounds that the appellants had not followed the proper procedure under Rule 233B and that the claim was time-barred under Section 11B since it was filed on 29-4-1992 for duty paid on 26-3-1991.The judgment delves into the interpretation of Rule 233B(1) regarding the meaning of 'proper officer.' It references previous Tribunal decisions, including cases like ICEM Engineering Co. P. Ltd. v. CCE, DCM Data Products, and Collector of Central Excise v. Unik Springs, which established that the Range Superintendent can be considered the Proper Officer for receiving protest letters under Rule 233B(1). The judgment affirms that the protest letter dated 26-3-1991 delivered to the Range Superintendent met the requirements of Rule 233B(1). Additionally, it highlights that the show cause notice acknowledged the payment of duty under protest, fulfilling Clause (2) of Rule 233B.Furthermore, the judgment addresses the compliance with Clause (5) of Rule 233B, noting that the appellants submitted a detailed representation to the Assistant Collector within three months of the protest letter delivery. It also clarifies that Clause (4) of Rule 233B might not be applicable in this case due to the one-time nature of the payment and protest. The judgment cites the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Roche Products, which deemed the requirements of Rule 233B as directory rather than mandatory.Ultimately, the judgment sets aside the Assistant Collector's decision, ruling in favor of the appellants. It concludes that the appellants are entitled to the refund of Rs. 1,38,655/- for the period in question and directs the recredit of this amount in RG 23A Part II in accordance with the law.