2011 (6) TMI 568 - AT - Central Excise

Eligibility of benefit of Notification - Exemption by way of refund Held that - Revenue cannot challenge the eligibility of the benefit of Notification as the same has been already decided by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 10.05.2005 and that order has not been challenged. - as per the provisions of Notification No.33/99-CE the manufacturer has to submit a statement of duty paid from account current by the 7th of next month in which the duty has been paid. The Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise after such verification as may be deemed necessary shall refund the amount of duty paid from the account current during the month under consideration to the manufacturer by 15th of next month as there is no denial of fact that Appellants were submitting statements of duty paid through account current. Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of benefit of Notification No.33/99-CE.
2. Time-barred refund claims.
3. Doctrine of strict construction of statute.

Eligibility of benefit of Notification No.33/99-CE:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) regarding the benefit of Notification No.33/99-CE claimed by the Respondents. The Notification provided for exemption by way of refund, with a prescribed procedure for submission of duty paid statements. The eligibility of the Respondents was previously decided by the Assistant Commissioner, and the refund was allowed. The Revenue contended that the refund claims were time-barred and that the adjudicating authority ignored the doctrine of strict construction of statute. However, the Tribunal found that the eligibility had already been decided by the Assistant Commissioner, and the refund claims were allowed as per the Notification's provisions. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the conditions of the Notification.

Time-barred refund claims:
The Revenue argued that the refund claims were time-barred, emphasizing the need to strictly adhere to the time limit specified in the Notification for making refund claims. However, the Tribunal noted that the eligibility of the benefit had been determined earlier by the Assistant Commissioner, and the refund claims were processed accordingly. Since the Assistant Commissioner's decision was not challenged by the Revenue, and the duty paid statements were being submitted as required, the Tribunal found no basis to consider the refund claims as time-barred. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of following the procedural requirements set out in the Notification for timely refund processing.

Doctrine of strict construction of statute:
The Revenue raised the issue of the adjudicating authority ignoring the doctrine of strict construction of statute in the context of the Notification under consideration. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of interpreting the Notification strictly and in accordance with its conditions. However, the Tribunal found that the Assistant Commissioner had already determined the eligibility of the benefit, which was not challenged by the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Notification's conditions had been followed, and there was no basis to question the refund claims on the grounds of strict construction of statute. The Tribunal's decision underscored the need to interpret statutory provisions diligently while also respecting the decisions made by competent authorities in line with the law.