9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 553 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of duty paid - period of limitation - payment of duty through PLA which was otherwise exempted - area based exemption - benefit of N/N. 56/2002 dated 14/11/2002 availed - extension of benefit of Notification pertaining to the expansion - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - Held that - In respect of the issue regarding the application of conditionality of expansion prior to date of filing is concerned, the same is covered by the decision of this very Tribunal in their own case COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMMU VERSUS SHANKAR TIMBER PRODUCTS 2011 (8) TMI 930 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , where it was held that When the duty in respect of clearances made during whole of December 2006 was payable only in the next month and during December 2006, the respondent was eligible for benefit of Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. - thus, the filing of the statements is procedural nature and does not come in way of granting of the refund to the appellant. The contention of the Department with exemption Notification cannot be granted to the respondent assessee for the period prior to 11/12/2006, has no basis on the law. It is seen from para 2(a) and 2(A)(d) of the Notification. Under the Notification it is not seen that it provides that in order to avail the Notification benefit the appellant will be disentitled to avail the benefit for the period prior to filing of the appeal. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Partial relief granted to the appellant assessee by the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals). 2. Appeal by Revenue against the order held against the Department. 3. Appeal by the appellant assessee against the rejection of their refund as time-barred. 4. Extension of benefit of Notification pertaining to expansion. 5. Contesting the rejection of refund as time-barred. Analysis: 1. The case involves appeals arising from a common Order-in-Appeal by the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals), where partial relief was granted to the appellant assessee. The Revenue appealed against the portion of the order unfavorable to the Department, while the appellant contested the rejection of their refund claim as time-barred. 2. The primary issue revolved around the appellant-assessee's manufacturing activities of plywood and boards in Jammu & Kashmir under Notification No. 56/2002. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim, citing that the duty rate was 8% per Notification No. 03/205/CE and 04/02/2006/CE, not the 16% paid by the appellant. The claim was also rejected for being filed after the one-year period specified in the Notification. 3. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the appellant's duty payment at 16% and found the rejection of expansion benefits incorrect. The Commissioner emphasized strict interpretation of the Notification's conditions, denying relaxation to the conditions. The Adjudicating Authority's adherence to the Notification's procedures and time limitations led to upholding the refund claim rejection. 4. Regarding the extension of benefit for expansion, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision where the benefit could not be restricted to clearance after 11/12/2006. Procedural filing of statements was deemed insignificant in granting the refund, supported by precedent. 5. The Department's appeal contended that the benefit could not apply before 11/12/2006, but the Tribunal found no legal basis for this argument in the Notification's provisions. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) had previously ruled in favor of the appellant based on the certificate from the District Industries Centre, which was deemed sufficient to meet the Notification's requirements. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by the appellant assessee and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals)'s findings.
|
