2018 (7) TMI 322 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of Central Excise Duty - area based exemption to units situated in North-East Area - N/N. 33/99-CE dated-08/07/1999 - rejection of refund on the ground of non-fulfilling of condition of enhanced installed capacity of 25% - Held that - Identical issue decided in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Shillong Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages 2004 (2) TMI 493 - CESTAT, KOLKATA , where it was held that overall increase of 25% in installed capacity is the requirement of N/N. 32/99 and 33/99, and there is no requirement that all the Sections of the manufacturing unit should be individually increased by 25%. The eligibility of exemption Notification stands settled in favour of the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Availability of Notification No. 33/99-CE dated-08/07/1999 for claiming refund of Central Excise Duty paid on finished product clearance from July 1999.

Analysis:
The case involved the availability of Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08/07/1999 and the refund claim of Central Excise Duty paid on finished product clearance from July 1999. The impugned order was passed against the Order-in-Excise Original No. R-34/08-09 dated 24.07.2008, where the adjudicating authority sanctioned a refund claim of ?1,72,93,081 to the appellant for the period November 2006 to June 2008.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the order, which set aside the lower adjudicating authority's decision. The Ld. Commr. (Appeals) mentioned that the appellant did not fulfill conditions, including filing required documents as per the notification and trade notice issued by the office of Commr. of Central Excise. The appellant also failed to prove the substantial expansion in their factory and compliance with duty payment statements as required under the Notification.

The appellant's advocate cited legal precedents such as Commr. of Central Excise, Shillong Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages and Commr. of Central Excise, Shillong Vs. Dorria Tea Estate to support their case. These cases established that an overall increase of 25% in installed capacity suffices for the notification's benefit, without the need for individual section upgrades. The legal proposition from these cases favored the appellant's position.

Additionally, reference was made to the judgment in the case of Birla Corpn Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, which emphasized consistency in applying legal principles to similar cases. The judgment highlighted that when facts are almost identical to a previous case, the Revenue cannot take a different stand, ensuring clarity and avoiding confusion in legal interpretation.

After reviewing the legal precedents and factual details, the Tribunal found that the eligibility for exemption under the Notification stood in favor of the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with the stay petition being disposed of.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies, precedents, and factual considerations that led to the decision in favor of the appellant regarding the availability of the Notification and the refund claim of Central Excise Duty paid on finished product clearance.