2013 (4) TMI 1004 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of Notification No.33/99-CE dated 08.07.2009, denial of exemption benefit, rejection of refund claim, withholding refund during appeal process.

Interpretation of Notification No.33/99-CE: The petitioner claimed entitlement to refund of excise duty under the incentive scheme covered by Notification No.33/99-CE. The appellate authority held that if the manufacturer proves substantial expansion and files monthly duty paid statements, they are entitled to exemption without the need for a formal refund claim. The appellant provided necessary documents and information as per Trade Notice No.116/2000 to support their claim. The denial of benefit and rejection of the claim were deemed unfair and improper as the appellant fulfilled all conditions as per the Trade Notice.

Denial of Exemption Benefit: The department rejected the claim on the ground of limitation, despite the absence of any time limitation specified in Notification No.33/99-CE. The rejection was considered improper as the appellant had submitted required documents within the specified time frame of the Trade Notice. The department's failure to verify the claim communicated via RT-12 for the month of November 2000 was highlighted as a lapse on their part. The denial of benefit based on technical lapses was deemed unjust, especially when caused by neglect on the part of authorities.

Withholding Refund During Appeal: The petitioner's application for refund was not considered due to an ongoing appeal, despite no stay being granted by the appellate authority. The CBEC's Excise Manual instruction prohibits withholding refunds solely based on the filing of an appeal without a stay order. The petitioner's claim was unjustly declined without reason, and no response was provided despite two opportunities to do so. The court directed respondent No.3 to implement the appellate authority's order within six weeks in the absence of a granted stay.