1998 (9) TMI 324 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of the product "cable sheathing compound" under the Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Rejection of refund claim for duty paid under protest during a specific period.
3. Dispute regarding the dutiability of the product from 6-9-1983 to 31-7-1985.
4. Appeal for remand based on the Appellate Tribunal's previous order.

Classification Issue:
The appeal involved a dispute over the classification of the product "cable sheathing compound" under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellant had started manufacturing this product in 1983, different from their master batches. Various authorities had conflicting views on the classification, leading to a series of orders and appeals. The Appellate Tribunal, in Order No. 818/91-C, dated 11-12-1991, ruled that the addition of colored carbon black did not create a new product, supporting the appellant's position.

Refund Claim Rejection:
The appellant filed a refund claim for duty paid under protest from 6-9-1983 to 31-7-1985, amounting to Rs. 12,40,307.69. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim citing that the dispute was not applicable to the period in question but only from 1-8-1985. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision erroneously believing the dispute was still pending. The appellant argued that as the dutiability issue was settled in their favor by the Tribunal, the refund should be granted, especially since the duty was paid under protest.

Dutiability Dispute:
The dispute regarding the dutiability of the product from 6-9-1983 to 31-7-1985 was crucial in the context of the refund claim. The appellant contended that all orders, including the final Tribunal order, related to the entire period in question, justifying their refund claim. The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) had differing views on the timeliness of the refund claim, leading to the appeal for resolution.

Remand Appeal:
The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not considered the Tribunal's Order No. 818/91-C, which favored the appellant's position. Justice demanded a remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision in light of the Tribunal's order. The appeal was allowed for remand to ensure a fair consideration of the appellant's case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for further review, emphasizing the legal complexities and procedural steps involved in the case.