9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 346 - HC - Central ExciseRefund claim - Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in dismissing the Department s appeal placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , passed during 1997, in respect of provisional assessment when a new provision clause (eb) to Explanation B in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was enacted with effect from 01.08.1998 by virtue of which the refund on finalization of the provisional assessment after 01.08.98 is governed by Section 11B of the Act - Held that - There is no doubt that clause (eb) to Explanation B of Section 11B is squarely applicable and the assessee also does not dispute the same. But the only issue that is raised here is that whether the refund claim has been made in terms of the said provisions. It is evident from the records that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is dated 21.8.98 and the refund claim has been made by the assessee on 21.9.98. Therefore, for all purposes, the relevant date will be the date of adjustment of the duty after final assessment made thereof. In this case, consequent to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the refund claim was made. Therefore, it is clear that the date is well within the time stipulated under Section 11B and there can be no dispute raised by the Department on this aspect. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law becomes totally irrelevant and does not require to be answered. Refund claim in this case was made much prior to the addition of the proviso in sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B. On the date on which the refund claim was made, the law applicable was the law as declared by this Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) which we have reproduced above. However, it is contended by the learned counsel Shri Verma for the department, that the claim of refund would be governed by the proviso introduced in sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B, and that as a consequence, the restrictions in Section 11A and Section 11B with regard to the procedure for refund would apply to the case of the respondent. The same question came up for consideration of this Court in Sinkhai Synthetics & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Aurangabad, 2002 (4) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . This view has been reiterated in a subsequent judgment of Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. M/s. Star Paper Mills Limited, 2003 (4) TMI 557 - SUPREME COURT upholding the view of the tribunal that the refund claim of the assessee before the court was justified. - This Court took the view that the case would be governed by the rule laid down in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra). - The Commissioner of Central Excise and the CEGAT were, justified in holding that the claim for refund made by the respondent had to be decided according to the law laid down by this Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra) and would not be governed by the proviso to sub- rule (5) of Rule 9B. - no merit in appeal - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act regarding refund claims. 2. Applicability of Notification No. 45/99-C.E. (N.T.) dated 25.6.1999 to provisional assessment issues. Analysis: Issue 1 - Interpretation of Section 11B: The case involved a dispute over the classification of a product for excise duty purposes. The respondent/assessee initially paid duty at 8% under one classification, but the Department classified it differently at 30%. After an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondent, who then filed a refund application within the stipulated time. The Department challenged this, leading to the Tribunal confirming the Commissioner's decision. The key legal question was whether the refund claim was made in accordance with Section 11B. The Court clarified that the relevant date for the refund claim was the date of adjustment of duty after final assessment, which was within the prescribed time frame. Therefore, the first substantial question of law was deemed irrelevant and did not require an answer. Issue 2 - Applicability of Notification No. 45/99-C.E. (N.T.) dated 25.6.1999: The second issue revolved around the applicability of a notification dated 25.6.1999 to the case. This notification introduced provisions related to provisional assessment of duty and unjust enrichment. The Court examined whether this notification applied to the period in question. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case, the Court held that the notification was not retrospective in operation. The Court emphasized that the refund claim made by the respondent was prior to the introduction of the proviso in the relevant rule. Therefore, the Court concluded that the refund claim should be governed by the law existing before the notification's enforcement. Consequently, the second substantial question of law was decided in favor of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding the Tribunal's order. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the interpretation of Section 11B regarding refund claims and determined the non-retrospective application of a notification in a case involving provisional assessment issues. The Court's detailed analysis and reliance on legal precedents ensured a thorough examination of the legal issues at hand, resulting in a clear decision in favor of the respondent.
|
