2009 (4) TMI 582 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Stay of operation of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Refund claim rejection based on location discrepancy - Interpretation of Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. - Prima facie case in favor of Revenue.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an application for the stay of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which set aside the Adjudication Order and allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent with consequential relief. The Respondents were involved in the manufacture of D.G. Sets falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and filed a refund claim under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. The Original Authority rejected the claim due to the unit's location discrepancy not being mentioned in Annexure-II of the said Notification. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision based on a certificate from the Tehsildar clarifying the actual location of the unit in village Trehara, not Tarore as mentioned in the Notification.

The main contention of the Revenue in the appeal was the absence of the village Trehara in the Annexure Notification. The Revenue's argument was supported by a Tribunal decision and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision in similar cases where the benefit was allowed based on the location matching the Notification requirements. The Tribunal found that the unit's location was not specified in the Notification, leading to a prima facie case in favor of the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal stayed the operation of the impugned order until the appeal's disposal, noting the recurring nature of the issue and scheduling the appeal hearing for July 15, 2009. The Tribunal granted the Revenue's application for stay.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the interpretation of Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. regarding the location requirement for refund claims under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The decision to stay the operation of the order was based on the absence of the unit's location in the Notification, leading to a prima facie case favoring the Revenue. The Tribunal's analysis highlighted the importance of compliance with Notification provisions in claiming benefits under the Central Excise Tariff Act.