1984 (7) TMI 275 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Claim for refund of duty paid on packing charges
- Application of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules
- Question of limitation for claiming refund
- Interpretation of protest under Rule 11

Analysis:

The case involved an appeal regarding a claim for refund of duty paid on packing charges of superfine cement. The appellant contended that the duty was collected illegally and without authority of law. The appellant argued that the limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules should not apply in genuine cases, citing precedent. The appellant also highlighted that the Madras Collectorate had issued a Trade Notice stating that the cost of packing should not be included in the assessable value for superfine cement.

The adjudication held that the claim for refund was barred by limitation under Rule 11 as the duty payment was not under protest during the relevant period. The appellate order confirmed this decision, leading to the appeal being transferred to the Tribunal.

During the Tribunal hearing, the main issue argued was the question of limitation. The appellant claimed that a letter dated 11-6-1974 constituted a protest, thereby stopping the limitation period under Rule 11.

The Tribunal noted that Rule 11, enacted in 1977, applied to the appellant's refund application filed in 1980, even though the duty payment period was earlier. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural amendments apply retrospectively unless the payment was made under protest. The letter from 1974 was deemed insufficient to establish a protest, leading to the conclusion that the claim for refund was indeed barred by limitation under Rule 11.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision that the claim for refund was time-barred due to the lack of a valid protest during the duty payment period.