2016 (12) TMI 1448 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Notification No. 51/2003-CEX (NT) dated 06.08.2003 - Held that - The ratio of Hon ble Tribunal s order in the case of M/s. Silwester Textiles Vs CCE 2003 (5) TMI 305 - CESTAT, MUMBAI is applicable in this case.. Moreover, the Section 11C(2) of CEA 44 provides that refund application should be filed within six month from the date of issue of Notification. The respondent has filed refund application within six months from issue of Section 11C notification dated 06.06.2003 and even otherwise also refund claim could be treated under Notfn. No. 84/03 - CE (NT) dated 31.12.03. Thus, there is no time bar in present refund claim if looked into above angle also - Appeal dismissed - decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Duty liability on Gold Potassium Cyanide (GPC) used in manufacturing imitation jewellery.
- Exemption under Notification No. 51/2003-CEX (NT) dated 06.08.2003.
- Validity of refund claim and unjust enrichment.
- Interpretation of Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Finality of orders and classification issues.
- Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Timeliness of the refund application.
- Claiming exemption post-clearance.
- Requirement of a Chartered Accountant (C.A.) certificate.

Analysis:
The case involves the liability of duty on Gold Potassium Cyanide (GPC) used in manufacturing imitation jewellery. The respondent claimed exemption under Notification No. 51/2003-CEX (NT) dated 06.08.2003, which exempted GPC for captive use retrospectively. The Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the refund claim, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The issue revolved around the proper allowance of the refund and unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) found in favor of the respondent, citing various legal precedents and the application of Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The Commissioner emphasized the finality of orders and classification issues, stating that the demand on GPC for certain periods had been dropped or set aside, making the refund valid. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings, noting that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit on all grounds. The judgment highlighted the significance of complying with Section 11B of the Act and the timeliness of the refund application, which was filed within the stipulated period from the issuance of the relevant notification.

Moreover, the case addressed the concept of claiming exemption post-clearance, with legal references supporting the respondent's entitlement to the refund. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Order-in-Original and emphasizing that the C.A. certificate was deemed unnecessary based on the legal and factual circumstances. Ultimately, the judgment affirmed the lower authorities' decisions, dismissing the Revenue's appeal comprehensively.