2019 (2) TMI 664 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of EC and SHEC - N/N. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 - amendment being brought out by N/N. 19/2008 dated 27.3.2008 and 34/2008-CE dated 10.6.2008 - Held that - This issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of Hon ble High Court of J&K in case of Reckitt Benckiser Vs. Union of India 2010 (12) TMI 237 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT , wherein the Hon ble High Court quashed the notifications in question. Therefore, in terms of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002, the appellants are entitled to claim refund/ self-credit of duty paid through PLA - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 56/2002-CE and subsequent amendments
- Correctness of taking 100% credit of Central Excise duty paid through PLA account
- Applicability of previous judicial decisions on the current case

Interpretation of Notification No. 56/2002-CE and subsequent amendments:
The appellant, a manufacturer of PP medicines, was availing benefits under Notification No. 56/2002-CE. The issue arose when the appellant took 100% credit of Central Excise duty paid through PLA account, contrary to the specified rates of 56% and 26% under the amendments introduced by Notification No. 19/2008 and 34/2008-CE. The Revenue contended that this action was incorrect, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice. However, the Tribunal noted that the issue had been addressed in a previous decision by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K in the case of Reckitt Benckiser Vs. Union of India and a subsequent order of the Tribunal. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Correctness of taking 100% credit of Central Excise duty paid through PLA account:
The crux of the matter revolved around the appellant's utilization of 100% credit of Central Excise duty paid through the PLA account, which was in conflict with the prescribed rates under the amended notifications. The Revenue argued that this action was not in compliance with the amendments and hence issued a show cause notice. After hearing both parties and examining the case record, the Tribunal referenced the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of J&K and a Final Order of the Tribunal, which supported the appellant's position. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing for consequential relief if applicable.

Applicability of previous judicial decisions on the current case:
The Tribunal considered the relevance of previous judicial decisions, specifically the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of J&K in the case of Reckitt Benckiser Vs. Union of India and a Final Order of the Tribunal. These decisions played a crucial role in determining the outcome of the present case. By following the precedents set in these judgments, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the significance of consistent interpretation and application of legal principles. The Tribunal's decision was guided by the established legal precedents, ensuring a fair and just resolution in line with the existing jurisprudence.