1998 (10) TMI 303 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds Order-in-Appeal on duty refund for burnt molasses, Range Officer's role confirmed

COLLECTOR OF C. EX., MEERUT Versus UP. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.

COLLECTOR OF C. EX., MEERUT Versus UP. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 549 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Refund claim rejection by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Commissioner of Central Excise's appeal against Order-in-Appeal.3. Time-barred refund claim for duty paid on burnt molasses.4. Compliance with Rule 233B regarding protest letter submission.5. High Court's stance on refund claim submission.6. Validity of the Range Officer receiving the refund claim.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal that set aside the Order-in-Original rejecting the refund claim by M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corporation for duty paid on burnt out molasses. The Commissioner allowed the appeal based on a previous Tribunal decision and the issue revolved around whether the burnt molasses attracted duty liability.2. The Commissioner of Central Excise challenged the Order-in-Appeal, arguing that the duty was paid on burnt molasses cleared in solid form, hence no remission was admissible. The contention was that the refund claim was time-barred, as the protest letter was not filed with the Assistant Commissioner as per Rule 233B. The Commissioner claimed Rs. 3010.14 refund for the period in question.3. The Tribunal found that the facts in the previous case were similar to the present one, both involving molasses damaged by autocombustion. The Tribunal held that the burnt molasses cleared were waste, not subject to duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly followed this decision in allowing the appeal.4. The argument regarding the time-barred refund claim was deemed untenable as the protest letter addressed to the Superintendent with a copy to the Assistant Commissioner met the procedural requirement of Rule 233B. The Tribunal's approach in previous cases supported this interpretation, emphasizing the Superintendent's role in the process.5. The High Court's stance in a related case clarified that the claim for refund need not be presented directly before the Assistant Collector. The normal practice was for the Range Officer to receive such applications without issue, as long as they were not defective. The court affirmed that the Superintendent could transmit the application to the Assistant Collector.6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, dismissing the department's appeal. The cross objection filed by the respondent was supportive of the impugned order and was dismissed as misconceived. The Range Officer's role in receiving the refund claim was deemed valid, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly.