2011 (1) TMI 296 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - cash refund of duty paid through PLA - exemption benefit under Notification No. 56/2002-CE - factory situated in Khasra No. 422 in the district of Jammu was covered by the said notification - Since the notification dated15th Sept. 2010is issued in the form of corrigendum to the original notification the corrections which are sought to be made in the notification will have to be read from the date of enforcement of the said notification no illegality committed by the Commissioner (Appeals) while granting the benefit of the said notification to the respondent Appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on incorrect land details in notification.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh, where the respondent's appeal against the adjudicating authority's order was allowed, modifying the original decision. The adjudicating authority had rejected the refund claim of the respondent amounting to Rs.1,08,53,742/- along with education cess and higher education cess, citing that the respondent's unit was not situated in the land specified in Annexure-II of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14th November 2002.

The respondents, engaged in manufacturing public address systems, were availing exemption benefits under the said Notification by filing refund claims. It was observed that the specified Khasra No. 422 was not mentioned in the Annexure-II of the Notification at the time of the original decision. However, a subsequent corrigendum dated 15th September 2010 rectified this error, correcting Khasra No. 5 to Khasra No. 422. Relying on precedents like K.C. Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jammu & Kashmir and CCE, Jammu & Kashmir Vs. V. Bhatia International, the respondent argued that the dispute raised by the department was no longer valid due to the correction in the notification.

Considering the corrigendum to the Notification No. 56/2002, it was established that the factory in Khasra No. 422 was covered by the said notification. The Tribunal held that since the corrigendum was issued as a correction to the original notification, the amendments should be applied retrospectively from the date of enforcement. This interpretation was supported by the decisions in the cases of K.C. Food Products Pvt. Ltd. and V. Bhatia International.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no illegality in the Commissioner (Appeals) granting the benefit of the notification to the respondent. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision in favor of the respondent.