9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n capacity – No infirmity with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) order - appeal of the Revenue dismissed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r adjudicating authority found that 50% of the entire production of detergent bars was not admissible on the ground that the respondent have installed one silo, one vibrator sieve, one weigh dropper, vapor separator, cyclone and sigma mixture for manufacture of detergent bars which has influenced the production and accordingly the lower adjudicating authority has proportionately rejected the refund claim. Lower adjudicating authority has also rejected the refund in respect of soda ash dense dust which was manufactured after31-12-2005after the introduction of aforesaid equipments. The lower adjudicating authority held that recredit of an amount of Rs. 98,76,749/- only to be allowed instead of refund in terms of Clause 2(c) of the Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken preliminary objection that as per Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944, 16 appeals should have been filed since learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has decided appeals against 16 orders-in-original. The contention of the appellant is that in the case of first issue of restricting 50% of refund claim on the ground of new capital goods installed after31-12-2005learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given detailed findings in para 11.1 to 11.5. As regards second issue wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) at para 12.1 to 12.3 allowed refund without abatement/reduction of duty so paid/reversed at the time of clearance of soda ash dense. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly held that deducting the refund amount fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenged the Ld. Commissioner Appeals' order, setting aside the lower adjudicating authority 's order to the extent of denial of 50% refund on the production of detergent bars in case of order No. 91/2008, dated12-6-2008. The contention of the appellant is that the respondent have installed one silo, one vibrator sieve, one weigh dropper, vapor separator, cyclone and sigma mixture for manufacture of detergent bars after 31-12-2005 and installation of one sigma mixture of production capacity of 3900 after 31-12-2005 is in addition to a sigma mixture of equal capacity already installed in the factory prior to 31-12-2005, has lead to enhancement in production capacity. This issue has been dealt with by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) at length in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adduced any findings to counter the appellants above arguments and the Chartered Engineer certificate. Further, I find that the basic use of installed machineries is to handle the problem of storage of raw materials, increase efficiency of the installed machinery and to facilitate easy change in formulation. I also find that it is a fact that there is no addition to the already installed capacity i.e. 75,000 Metric Tones and the said fact has not been refuted by the lower Authority in his order." The department didn't challenge the findings of the lower adjudicating authority. Revenue could not produce any document or any evidence which shows enhancement of production capacity. The Revenue has also placed reliance on clarification on Poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the law in the form of provisions of Sections 5A and 38A of the Act as well as the general principles relating to promissory estoppels it becomes clear that even if one were to uphold the powers of the Central Government to issue a notification in exercise of powers under Section 5A of the Act, it would not be possible to uphold the said exercise in so far as impugned Notification No. 16/2008-C.E., dated 27-3-2008 and Notification No. 33/2008-C.E., dated 10-6-2008 are concerned to the extent they are sought to be applied to new industrial units set up in Kutch District of Gujarat in compliance with Original Notification No. 39/2001-C.E., dated 31-7-2001 within the stipulated period. Accordingly, the two impugned notifications to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
