9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1215 - AT - Central ExciseRestoration of registration certificate of Respondent - amendment in the registration certificate by adding the address of manufacturer s Premises-II of the Respondent - Whether the RC was lying with the HQ Anti-Evasion or with the Respondent herein? - Held that - Under the existing factual matrix Adjudicating authority under Order-in-Original dated 10/9/2009 was justified in extending the benefit of doubt that original RC was seized by the officers of HQ Anti evasion and restored the RC of the Respondent and also ordered for suitable amendments. We also hold the original RC was with the department as Respondent was not to be benefitted in any way by withholding the original RC and benefit of doubt is given to the Respondent. Reasoning given by the first appellate authority in para 10 of Order-in-Appeal dated 11/5/2011 is thus logical and do not require any interference. So far as payment of interest on refund due under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act 1944 is concerned, it is true that as per CBEC Circular No. 842/19/2006-CX dated 8/12/2006 and 682/73/2002-CX dated 19/02/02 it has been opined that refunds under Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 8/7/1999 are not refunds under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, Jurisdictional Guwahati High Court on the same issue while deciding the case Amalgamated Plantations (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2013 (11) TMI 589 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT held that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not exclude claim of refund made in terms of the notification dated 8-7-1999. Petitioners would, therefore, be entitled to interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the excise duty refunded to them - assessee entitiled to interest. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Registration Certificate (RC) was with HQ Anti-Evasion or the Respondent. 2. Whether the processes carried out in Premises-II amounted to manufacture. 3. Whether the Respondent is eligible to claim the benefit of Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 8/7/1999. 4. Whether refund is admissible to the Respondent. 5. Whether interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is payable on the refund. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Registration Certificate (RC) Possession: The first appellate authority concluded that the RC was seized by HQ Anti-Evasion officers on 26/5/2003, as supported by the department's statements in EDM-410/04 and EDM-530/04 filed with CESTAT. The Respondent had informed the Range Superintendent about the change of address and factory premises on 23/1/2003 and had filed the required application for amendment on 27/3/2003. The appellate authority found no motive for the Respondent to hide the RC and concluded that it was indeed seized by the department, thus restoring the RC and ordering suitable amendments. 2. Processes Amounting to Manufacture: The first appellate authority did not explicitly address this issue in the appeal, as the main contention revolved around the registration and eligibility for exemption and refund. The adjudicating authority had previously determined that the blending and mixing activities did not amount to manufacture. 3. Eligibility for Notification No. 33/99-CE: The appellate authority held that the Respondent was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 8/7/1999. The Respondent had complied with the procedural requirements by informing the jurisdictional range officer and applying for an amendment to the RC. Despite the department's argument that the RC was not valid for Premises-II, the appellate authority found that the Respondent had a valid registration from 1/4/2003, thus entitling them to the exemption. 4. Refund Admissibility: The appellate authority decided in favor of the Respondent, allowing the refund claim of ?44,16,000/-. The Respondent had paid this amount in April 2003, and the appellate authority found no reason to deny the refund, given the valid registration and compliance with procedural requirements. 5. Interest on Refund under Section 11BB: The appellate authority ordered the payment of interest on the refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue argued that Section 11B provisions were not applicable to refunds under Notification No. 33/99-CE, citing CBEC Circulars. However, the jurisdictional Guwahati High Court in Amalgamated Plantations (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2013 (296) ELT 13 (Guw.)] held that Section 11BB applies to any excise duty refund, including those under the said notification. The appellate authority followed this precedent, rejecting the Revenue's argument and upholding the payment of interest. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, with the appellate authority upholding the Respondent's eligibility for the exemption, the refund claim, and the payment of interest on the refund. The decision was based on compliance with procedural requirements, the seizure of the RC by the department, and the jurisdictional High Court's interpretation of the applicability of Section 11BB to refunds under Notification No. 33/99-CE.
|
