1996 (9) TMI 410 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Compliance with Rule 233B for payment of duty under protest.
3. Interpretation of a letter as a refund claim or a protest letter.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 7,93,333.20 for duty paid during 9-5-1985 to 18-10-1985 under Deemed Export Notification 211/85. The Commissioner of Central Excise upheld the rejection as time-barred under Section 11B, as the claim was filed on 6-9-1988, beyond the six-month limit. The appellant argued that a letter dated 3-10-1985 should be considered a protest letter for duty paid after that date and a refund claim for the earlier period. However, the Tribunal found the letter insufficient as a refund claim due to lack of specific details and eligibility for the exemption at the time of writing the letter.

2. The appellant contended that the letter of 3-10-1985 should be viewed as a protest letter under Rule 233B. The Tribunal noted that the letter sought authorization to dispatch goods without duty payment under an exemption notification, lacking explicit indication of paying duty under protest. Despite this, considering the circumstances and subsequent gate pass endorsements of paying duty under protest, the Tribunal deemed the letter as a protest for clearances post the mentioned date. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to assess the eligibility for refund based on the letter as a protest.

3. The Tribunal distinguished previous cases where letters were construed as refund claims based on specific details and intent, unlike the letter in question. While the appellant cited precedents, the Tribunal found the nature of the letter insufficient to be considered a refund claim. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the letter's indication of intent to clear goods under exemption, leading to the acceptance of the letter as a protest for subsequent clearances. The appeal was disposed of with directions for the Assistant Commissioner to review the refund claim based on the letter as a protest and assess eligibility accordingly.