2017 (2) TMI 1141 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - appellant filed a refund claim on excise duty paid during the period 01.01.2009 to 11.01.2009 on the ground, they had commenced the production only on 12.01.2009 - capacity based duty paid on Pan Masala Packing Rules, 2008 - Held that - The similar issue came in the Hon ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Godwin Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2010 (5) TMI 322 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT , where it was held that Factory started production from middle of the month, therefore, it was wholly unjust for the department to recover the duty for the whole month - as no production was started till 12.01.2009, therefore, appellant is entitle for refund of duty for the period 01.01.2009 to 11.01.2009 paid by them - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of refund of excise duty paid by the appellant.
2. Entitlement of the appellant for a refund of duty paid from 01.01.2009 to 11.01.2009.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of refund of excise duty paid by the appellant
The appellant appealed against the impugned order that denied their refund claim for excise duty paid. The appellant had purchased 3 FFS machines to manufacture Pan Masala and informed the department that production would start on 12.01.2009. However, they paid duty for the entire month under Pan Masala Packing Rules, 2008. Subsequently, a refund claim was filed for the duty paid during the period 01.01.2009 to 11.01.2009 as production only commenced on 12.01.2009. The Ld. Commissioner (A) rejected the claim citing the absence of a provision in the Pan Masala Packing Rules, 2008 to allow refunds in such cases. The appellant challenged this decision.

Issue 2: Entitlement of the appellant for a refund of duty paid from 01.01.2009 to 11.01.2009
The key question was whether the appellant was entitled to a refund for the duty paid from 01.01.2009 to 11.01.2009. The Tribunal referred to a similar case in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, where it was held that a factory not in production should not be liable to pay duty for the entire month. Drawing from this precedent, the Tribunal concluded that as the appellant had not started production until 12.01.2009, they were entitled to a refund of duty paid for the period 01.01.2009 to 11.01.2009. Consequently, the impugned order denying the refund was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

This judgment highlights the importance of aligning duty payments with actual production periods and the applicability of legal precedents in determining refund entitlements concerning excise duty payments.