2002 (9) TMI 779 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim of additional duty of excise on cotton yarn supplied to 100% E.O.U.
2. Allegation of refund claim not supported by original documents and being time-barred.
3. Review of Asst. Commissioner's order by Revenue and appeal before Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Contention regarding payment of duty under protest as per Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a refund claim by the respondents for additional duty of excise paid on cotton yarn supplied to a 100% E.O.U. for export. The Asst. Commissioner initially sanctioned the refund after considering all relevant documents and a letter submitted by the respondents expressing their intention to pay duty under protest. However, the Revenue reviewed this decision, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The Revenue's appeal primarily focused on the contention that the duty was not paid under protest as required by Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was argued that the protest letter submitted by the respondents did not cover all the clearances made on specific dates, rendering certain refund claims time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) reviewed the case and found discrepancies in the payment under protest, leading to a decision to allow the appeal for certain amounts and remand the case for further examination.

3. In the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, the judge noted that while the entitlement of refund to the respondent was not contested on merits, the issue of whether the duty was paid under protest as per the rules needed clarification. The judge highlighted specific invoices and protest letters to determine the validity of the refund claims, ultimately allowing the appeal for certain amounts and remanding the case for a fresh examination by the Original Authority.

4. The judge's analysis emphasized the importance of compliance with the provisions of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding payment under protest. The decision to allow the appeal for some refund amounts and remand the case for further examination underscored the need for a meticulous review of the payment details and protest letters to determine the validity of the refund claims. Both parties were granted the opportunity to present their case before the Original Authority for a fair reconsideration of the refund amounts in question.