2011 (1) TMI 791 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - claim of refund arising in relation to education cess and higher education cess with reference to Notification No. 56/02-C.E. - Revenue states that the issue involved in all these matters relates to the claim by the assessee for refund of the amounts which were paid as Education Cess or Higher Education Cess while availing the benefit in terms of Notification No. 56/02-C.E., dated 14th November 2002 and the factory is situated within the jurisdiction of State of Jammu and Kashmir - Hence, matter is fully covered by the delivered by the Tribunal wherein it has been held that such amount is not refundable to the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recall of stay orders based on incorrect grounds.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to applications for the recall of stay orders passed in relation to refund claims by the respondent. The issue at hand was the expansion of the establishment resulting in increased employment, not related to education cess or higher education cess under Notification No. 56/02-C.E., dated 14th November 2002. The Adjudicating Authority had granted relief based on grounds that were not the subject matter of adjudication. The stay orders were passed on incorrect premises due to reliance on statements made by the Departmental Representative, which were not supported by the records.

The Tribunal found that the relief granted by the Adjudicating Authority was unrelated to the education cess or higher education cess covered under the said notification. The stay order was based on a misrepresentation by the Departmental Representative, citing a decision in another case as a basis for the decision. The Tribunal acknowledged the error in relying on this statement and recalled the order dated 9th November 2009. The matter was directed to be listed for a hearing on 4th April 2011, emphasizing the importance of accurate and substantiated representations in legal proceedings.

Overall, the judgment highlights the significance of ensuring that decisions are based on the actual issues under consideration and supported by factual evidence. It underscores the need for accuracy and diligence in legal representations to avoid erroneous outcomes and emphasizes the importance of adhering to the relevant legal provisions and precedents in making judicial determinations.