9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1438 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim of excess duty paid - Issuance of two Notifications No.22/2014 and 24/2014 modifying the rates of duty on Motor Spirit (MS) and High Speed Diesel (HSD) - date on which the notification came into effect - HELD THAT - Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ONGC Ltd. Others 2020 (3) TMI 700 - CESTAT HYDERABAD have held vide Final Order No.A/31085- 31087/2019 that both the conditions mentioned in Section 5A(5) have to be fulfilled for any notification to come into force. In this case, the second condition was not fulfilled during the relevant period and therefore, the exemption notifications had not come into force. Consequently, the appellants were not required to pay duty at the enhanced rate during the relevant periods and therefore, any excess duty which they paid was refundable. T he Appellant s argument that the applicability of Notifications would be from the date of publication in the Gazette in terms of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is correct, legal and proper. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and therefore are set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
- Early hearing of appeals - Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - Interpretation of Notifications No.22/2014 and 24/2014 regarding duty rates on Motor Spirit (MS) and High Speed Diesel (HSD) - Refund claims based on the delayed publication of notifications in the Gazette - Discrepancies in the decisions of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) leading to appeals by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and the Revenue - Legal validity of the notifications and the date of their applicability The judgment addressed various issues, including the early hearing of appeals and the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The case revolved around the interpretation of Notifications No.22/2014 and 24/2014 concerning duty rates on Motor Spirit (MS) and High Speed Diesel (HSD). M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) filed refund claims due to delayed publication of the notifications in the Gazette, resulting in the payment of enhanced duties under protest. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected some claims while accepting others, leading to appeals by both IOCL and the Revenue. The Tribunal considered precedents set by other benches in similar cases. The Ahmedabad Bench's decision in the Vadodara Refinery case highlighted that the notifications would be effective from the date of publication in the Gazette, not the date of issue. The Hyderabad Bench's ruling in the case of ONGC Ltd. & Others emphasized that both conditions under Section 5A(5) must be met for a notification to come into force. Failure to fulfill the second condition rendered the exemption notifications ineffective, making any excess duty paid refundable. Furthermore, the Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. M/s. Param Industries Ltd. and Ors. The court stressed the importance of both publishing the notification in the official gazette and offering it for sale simultaneously. Failure to meet these conditions invalidated the imposition of differential duty based on the notification. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld IOCL's argument that the notifications' applicability should start from the date of publication in the Gazette, as per Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s decisions on certain appeals by IOCL and dismissed others. The judgment clarified the legal interpretation of the notifications, emphasizing the significance of the publication date in the Gazette for determining their applicability.
|
