2015 (12) TMI 1207 - HC - Central Excise

Refund claim - fixation of Special Rate in respect of its product, namely, Ferro Silicon for the year 2011-12 representing the actual value addition - notification No. 17/2008 CE dated 27.3.2008 (as amended vide Notification No. 31/2008 CE dated 10.06.2008) - reduction of entitlement from 100% to 39% - Non production of relevant documents - Held that - Union of India, could not point out anything further except what is provided in the affidavit-in-opposition whereas the petitioner company has asserted that it had supplied all documents, even though they were not required under the rules, which are also admitted by the respondents in the affidavit. We thus think it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioner afresh on merit which were disposed of vide the order dated 24.12.2014 only for non-supply of certain documents. A detailed reason would thus be required to be given by the quasi judicial authority within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong regarding the fixation of Special Rate for Ferro Silicon.
2. Interpretation of relevant notifications and rules governing excise duty exemptions.
3. Dispute over the submission of private records for verification by the authorities.
4. Allegations of failure on the part of the respondent authorities in carrying out the statutory exercise of fixation of Special Rate.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, seeking the setting aside of the order and a fresh decision on the claim for fixation of Special Rate for Ferro Silicon. The petitioner contended that the claim was pending for over three years without a decision, depriving them of a legitimate refund claim. The relevant notifications required the Commissioner to decide such claims within a stipulated period, which was allegedly not adhered to in this case.

2. The dispute involved the interpretation of notifications governing excise duty exemptions. The petitioner claimed entitlement to a higher exemption percentage under a previous notification, which was reduced under a subsequent notification. The petitioner argued that the raw materials used were derived from natural sources, eliminating the excise duty at the purchase stage. However, the authorities did not favor the petitioner's claim for a higher exemption percentage, citing non-submission of certain supporting documents.

3. The issue of submission of private records for verification by the authorities was a point of contention. The petitioner argued that they had been regularly submitting transaction documents to the local Excise Officer, and the Commissioner should have based the decision on those documents instead of demanding additional private records. The authorities, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of private records for detailed verification and fixation of special rates.

4. Allegations of failure on the part of the respondent authorities to carry out the statutory exercise of fixation of Special Rate were raised. The petitioner claimed that all required information was regularly submitted to the Range Office, and the authorities failed to conduct the verification process diligently. The Court directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's applications afresh, emphasizing the need for a detailed reason for their decision within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the authorities to reevaluate the petitioner's applications for fixation of Special Rate. The judgment highlighted the importance of a thorough examination of the claims and the need for detailed reasons for decisions in excise duty matters.

← Previous Next →