2023 (12) TMI 116 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of 100% excise duty paid in cash in respect of final products - benefit of Notification No. 32/1999-CE dated 08.07.1999 availed - applications rejected on the grounds that subject applications are barred by limitation inasmuch as Para 2.1(1) of the Notification No. 32/1999-CE (supra) and Para 3(1) of the Notification No. 20/2007-CE - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res integra as an identical issue has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of M/S HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, DIBRUGARH 2023 (10) TMI 991 - CESTAT KOLKATA , wherein it has been held that the application filed before the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court cannot be construed as time barred. Thus, the applications filed by the Appellant for fixation of special rates of valuation on 29.09.2010, for the FY 2009-10 for each of the units, is not time barred - the impugned orders set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case revolve around the application of special rates of value addition by the Appellant for their units in light of the amended notifications affecting the refund of excise duty, and the question of whether these applications were time-barred.

Issue 1 - Amended Notifications and Refund of Excise Duty:
The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing mosquito repellents, availed the benefit of Notification No. 32/1999-CE granting 100% exemption on products cleared from a unit in the North-Eastern region. Subsequent notifications restricted the refund to the limit of value additions, reducing the central excise duty refund to 34% of the total duty paid. Legal battles ensued, with the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the amended notifications, reinstating them. This decision affected the Appellant's refund claims.

Issue 2 - Timeliness of Special Value Addition Applications:
During the pendency of the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Appellant submitted applications for special rate fixation for the financial year 2009-10, as the actual value addition exceeded the specified percentage. The Commissioner rejected these applications as time-barred, citing limitations in the relevant notifications. The Appellant contended that post the Supreme Court's decision, the right to apply for special value addition was restored, as seen in precedents like the Hindustan Unilever case.

Judgment:
The Tribunal, considering previous decisions, held that applications filed before the Supreme Court's decision cannot be deemed time-barred. Citing the Hindustan Unilever case and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Guwahati High Court, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant. The impugned orders rejecting the applications on the grounds of being time-barred were set aside, and the appeals filed by the Appellant were allowed.