9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 11 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of additional duty on Diesel - goods were supplied under N/N. 108/95-CE - Exemption to goods supplied to UN or an International Organisation as per notification - HELD THAT - The exemption is in respect of the duty mentioned that covered under Section 3 and the additional duty on excise liveable thereon under sub section 1 of section 3 of additional duty of excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. However, in the present case the duty for which the exemption and refund is claimed is not covered by the Notification as the same was imposed under Section 133 of the Finance Act 1999 as amended issue of Section 120 of Finance Bill, 2005. Therefore, the duty which is not mentioned in the Notification cannot be given exemption. The view is reinforced by the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. UNICORN INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS 2019 (12) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it was categorically held that the duty which is not exempted cannot be given exemption under the guise of duty of excise. Hence, the appellant is not neither entitled for the exemption nor for the refund of the cenvat credit. Accordingly, the impugned order has not suffered from any infirmity - Appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
1. Entitlement for refund of additional duty on Diesel under Notification No. 108/95-CE. Detailed Analysis: The issue in this case revolves around the entitlement of the appellant for a refund of additional duty of Rs. 2000 per KL on Diesel under Notification No. 108/95-CE. Despite multiple notices, the appellant failed to appear, leading to the matter being taken up for disposal. The Authorized Representative for the Respondent argued that the exemption under the said notification is limited to specific duties under the Central Excise Act and the Additional Duty of Excise Act. Citing relevant judgments, the representative contended that the duty for which the refund was sought does not fall under the purview of the notification, making the appellant ineligible for the exemption and consequent refund. Upon considering the submissions and examining the records, it was found that the duty in question was imposed under Section 133 of the Finance Act, 1999, as amended by the Finance Bill, 2005. The exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE specifically covers duties under Section 3 and additional duties under the Additional Duty of Excise Act. As the duty for which the refund was claimed did not align with the duties specified in the notification, the appellant could not avail of the exemption or refund. This interpretation was supported by a Supreme Court ruling, emphasizing that duties not exempted cannot be granted exemption under the guise of excise duty. Consequently, the appellant was deemed ineligible for both the exemption and the refund of the cenvat credit, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. In conclusion, the judgment upholds the decision, emphasizing that the appellant's claim for exemption and refund was not covered by the relevant notification due to the specific nature of the duties mentioned therein, as clarified by legal precedents.
|
