2004 (2) TMI 162 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the CT-2 Certificate issued to the appellants is operative from the date of application?
2. Whether the appellants are entitled to claim exemption from payment of Special Excise Duty on tyres and tubes received prior to the date of CT-2 Certificate issuance?
3. Whether the benefit of the Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. is available to the appellants for the disputed period?
4. Whether the appellants are eligible for seeking a refund of the Special Excise Duty paid by them?

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicles, applied for a CT-2 Certificate on 3-3-2000, which was issued by the Central Excise department on 9-3-2000. The issue was whether the Certificate was operative from the date of application. The Tribunal held that the Certificate was effective from the date of application, allowing the appellants to claim exemption from Special Excise Duty on tyres and tubes received during the period prior to the Certificate's issuance.

2. In a similar case involving TISCO, the Tribunal had allowed the benefit of a Notification even before the formal permission was granted by the department. The Tribunal also cited a Supreme Court case where registration was deemed to date back to the application date. Applying these principles, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. for the disputed period, making them eligible for a refund of the Special Excise Duty paid.

3. The Tribunal distinguished the case relied upon by the department, where the assessee had not followed the required procedure. In contrast, the Tribunal found that the CT-2 Certificate in this case was effective from the date of application, indicating compliance with the necessary procedure. Consequently, the appellants were deemed eligible for the exemption under the Notification, subject to proving that the duty incidence was not passed on to others.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the appeal, granting the refund claim to the appellants. However, the refund was subject to the condition that the appellants demonstrate that the claim did not suffer from unjust enrichment. The original authority was tasked with verifying this condition and making a decision after hearing the party involved.