2022 (1) TMI 758 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of the amount Central Excise Duty - deemed exports or not - supplies made to ONGC and Oil India Limited against International Competitive Bidding - exemption under Serial No 336 of Notification No 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - when the goods are exempted and cleared on payment of duty whether subsequently refund can be claimed? - HELD THAT - In the present case there is no dispute that the goods cleared by the appellant were indeed exempted in terms of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. Therefore, the excise duty was not payable since the appellant has paid the excise duty which was otherwise not payable the same is refundable to the appellant. In the case of COMMISSIONER VERSUS SUNCITY ALLOYS PVT. LTD. 2007 (2) TMI 137 - HIGH COURT, RAJASTHAN , the Hon'ble Rajasthan High court held that if in respect of the goods exported under claim for rebate of duty undisputedly duty was not payable and still the manufacturer paid the duty the same has to necessarily refund to the manufacturer - In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD VERSUS SURESH C. NAYI 2010 (7) TMI 747 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD it was held that the benefit of exemption notification can be claimed at any stage. In the present case also even if the appellant has claimed the benefit subsequent to clearance of goods or payment of duty the benefit of exemption needs to be extended to the appellant. In view of the settled legal position there is no reason to deny the refund of excise duty paid by the appellant in respect of exempted goods - the appellant is entitled for the refund - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Entitlement to refund of Central Excise Duty on supplies made to ONGC and Oil India Limited against International Competitive Bidding, which were exempt from duty under Notification No 12/2012-CE and deemed exports under the Foreign Trade Policy.

Analysis:
The issue in the present appeal revolved around whether the appellant was entitled to a refund of Central Excise Duty paid on supplies made to ONGC and Oil India Limited, which were exempt from duty under Notification No 12/2012-CE and deemed exports under the Foreign Trade Policy. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund, stating that since the final product was exempted under the notification, duty was not payable, and hence, the refund was not admissible.

The appellant's counsel argued that the goods were absolutely exempt from duty, and no duty was payable at the time of clearance, which should have been grounds for granting a refund. They cited various judgments to support their position, emphasizing that the benefit of an exemption notification can be claimed at any stage. They also contested the relevance of a judgment cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present case.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions, the Member (Judicial) found that the goods cleared by the appellant were indeed exempted under Notification No 12/2012-CE. As the excise duty was not payable, the duty paid by the appellant was deemed refundable. The Member highlighted previous judgments that supported the refund claim in similar situations, emphasizing that if duty was not payable and yet paid, it must be refunded to the manufacturer. The Member also reiterated that the benefit of an exemption notification can be claimed at any stage, further supporting the appellant's entitlement to the refund.

In conclusion, based on the settled legal position and the specific circumstances of the case, the Member held that the appellant was entitled to the refund of the excise duty paid on the exempted goods. Consequently, the impugned order was modified, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief to be granted in accordance with the law.