9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... International, [ 1989 (1) TMI 316 - SUPREME COURT ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an interpretation unduly restricting the scope of beneficial provision is to be avoided so that it may not take away with one hand what the policy gives with the other - In the Union of India v. A.V. Narasimhalu, [ 1969 (9) TMI 41 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Apex Court also observed that the administrative authorities should instead of relying on restrictive interpretations and technicalities, act in a manner consistent with the broader concept of justice - Appellant has followed the procedure as laid down in Central Excise (Removal of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacturing of excisable goods) Rules, 2001 - Only the permission from the Asst. Commissioner was received late. Since the permission was not received in time they cleared the goods on payment of duty. Had the permission been obtained in time, they would have cleared the goods without payment of duty. Since the goods are otherwise entitled for clearance without payment of duty, they are entitled for the refund – Decided against the Revenue. - Appeal No.E/340/12 - Final Order No. A/10775/2013-WZB/AHD - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the respondent has not substantively followed the provisions of the said Rules. It is the submission that the respondent should have followed the procedures mentioned in the said Rules and there is also a discrepancy of the receipts of the respondent s end. It is the submission that when the respondent is seeking benefit of the Notification, it is for him to show whether he is eligible for it or not. For these arguments he would rely upon the grounds of appeal as indicated in the appeal memoranda which are reproduced herein under: 2.1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that "the law is settled now that substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapses. Procedure has been prescribed to facilitate verification of substantive requirement. As per Notification No.4/2006 dated A1.03.2006, the appellant are entitled to procure Sulphuric Acid for use in the manufacture of Fertilizers without payment of duty by following the procedure laid down in Central Excise (Removal of Goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable Goods) Rules, 2006. I find that the appellant has followed the procedure". During the disputed period only some of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been explained by the respondent has arisen due to non-granting of permission in time from the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. He would submit that the findings recorded by the first appellate authority are very correct and there is no ambiguity in the said findings. 5. I have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 6. The facts are not much disputed in as much as the sulphuric acid which has been procured by the respondent from M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. is consumed for manufacture of fertilisers at their factory. It is also undisputed that respondents are eligible to get sulphuric acid from M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. without payment of duty. It is also undisputed that the Fertilisers manufactured by the respondent i.e. DAP is covered under the Fertilisers Price Control Order and the price of such fertilisers are fixed by the Government of India, buy an order. I find that the adjudicating authority has given one of the reasons for rejecting the refund claim is on the ground of unjust enrichment. I find that the final product manufactured by the respondent i.e. fertiliser being controlled by the Fertiliser Price Control Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute regarding the duty paid on the raw material. Further, the procured Sulphuric Acid has been used in the manufacture of Fertilizer, as per the Annexure-46 submitted bi the appellants and as per the letter dated 14.6.2010 of the Assistant Commissioner Cuttack Division, addressed to the appellants. Thus when the procurement of the raw materials, its duty payment and its use for the intended purpose are not disputed, the appellants are definitely entitled for the refund claim. When the basic criteria has been satisfied, the procedural deficiencies cannot be the only ground for rejecting refund claims, and can be condoned. Here, I would rely on the following decisions in support of my view- 10.1. In UOI v. Suksha International, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an interpretation unduly restricting the scope of beneficial provision is to be avoided so that it may not take away with one hand what the policy gives with the other. In the Union of India v. A.V. Narasimhalu, 1983 (13) E.L,T. 1534 (S.C.), the Apex Court also observed that the administrative authorities should instead of relying on restrictive interpretations and technicalities, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
