9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 538 - AT - Central ExciseArea Based Exemption - substantial exemption - appellant increased their overall installed capacity by 37% during the period 01.01.1998 to 01.07.1999 - benefit of N/N. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 - case of Revenue is that the appellant has submitted their application after about nine years from the date of completion of expansion or the date of the said Notification. HELD THAT - The exemption Notification in question is a conditional exemption Notification available by way of refund. Para 2 of that exemption Notification prescribes the procedure for claiming it. This procedure requires the manufacturer to submit a statement of duty paid etc. on a monthly basis to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, who is required to verify the same and refund the amount. Admittedly the appellant had not done so. There is nothing in the returns to show that they had intended to claim the benefit of exemption Notification No.33/99-CE or actually claimed in any of their returns whatsoever - this cannot be equated with fulfilling the conditions required under para 2 of the exemption Notification. Thus, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the refund claim - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.33/99-CE. 2. Timeliness and procedural compliance in submitting the exemption claim. 3. Validity of RT-12 returns as a substitute for the required statements under the exemption notification. 4. Necessity of challenging the assessed RT-12 returns for claiming a refund. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No.33/99-CE: The appellant, a tea manufacturer, sought exemption from excise duties under Notification No.33/99-CE, claiming an increase in installed capacity by 37% between 01.01.1998 and 01.07.1999. The exemption notification required manufacturers to submit a statement of duty paid to the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise by the 7th of the next month. The appellant argued that they met the substantive requirements of the exemption by declaring the expansion in their RT-12 returns. However, the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority found that the appellant did not meet the procedural requirements, and the RT-12 returns did not explicitly claim the exemption or indicate the expansion as required by the notification. 2. Timeliness and Procedural Compliance in Submitting the Exemption Claim: The appellant submitted the application for exemption on 02.01.2008, nearly nine years after the completion of the expansion or the date of the notification. The department issued a show cause notice alleging an inordinate delay and lack of original documents. The appellant provided copies of documents and claimed the originals were available in the factory. However, the adjudicating authority found that the original documents were submitted only on 16.12.2009, one year after the refund application, and the appellant could not prove they informed the range office about the expansion in 2001. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially ruled in favor of the appellant, but CESTAT, Kolkata remanded the matter for re-adjudication, where the claim was again rejected as time-barred. 3. Validity of RT-12 Returns as a Substitute for the Required Statements: The appellant relied on case laws (CCE, Shillong v. Shiv Dham Industries, K.K. Beverages, and Vinay Cement) to argue that RT-12 returns could be considered as statements showing payment of duty for availing the refund. However, the adjudicating authority found that the RT-12 returns did not bear any endorsement as claimed by the appellant, and the claim regarding the endorsement was a willful misstatement. The Tribunal noted that the exemption notification required a separate statement and not merely the RT-12 returns. The RT-12 returns submitted by the appellant did not explicitly claim the exemption or indicate the expansion, and thus did not fulfill the conditions of the exemption notification. 4. Necessity of Challenging the Assessed RT-12 Returns for Claiming a Refund: The learned Authorized Representative argued that the exemption notification required strict compliance with its conditions, and the benefit of doubt must go in favor of the Revenue as per the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Kumar. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the appellant did not fulfill the conditions required under para 2 of the exemption notification. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the refund could not be sanctioned without first amending the assessment itself, as per the judgments in Priya Blue Industries and Flock India. The appellant admitted that the assessed RT-12 returns were not challenged before any higher judicial forum. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that no refund could be sanctioned without revising the assessment. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal, stating that the appellant did not meet the procedural requirements of the exemption notification and did not challenge the assessed RT-12 returns. The benefit of the exemption notification could not be granted, and the refund claim was not admissible. The judgment emphasized strict compliance with the conditions of exemption notifications and the necessity of challenging assessments to claim refunds.
|
