9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a manufacturer with respect to the duties paid by utilizing the CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001. Therefore, legally not only Education/SHE Cesses are ineligible to cash refund but also it will not be correct to say that the entire Basic Excise Duty is exempted and that accordingly no Education/SHE Cess should be payable or will be refundable - refund of Education/SHE Cesses, under Notification No.39/2001-CE, dt.31.07.2001, has been correctly denied by the lower authorities. - Decided against the assessee. Once Coating Section was held to be in-eligible for exemption under Notification No.39/2001-CE, then the refund earlier sanctioned with respect to Coating Section becomes a case of erroneous refund. Such a refund pertain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .12.2005. CESTAT Ahmedabad vide Order No.A/1634-1637/WZB/AHD/ 2010, dt.26.08.2010 ordered that the coating unit set up after 31.12.2005 will not get the benefit of the said notification, accordingly, appellant obtained a fresh registration for the same, pursuant to the order of Tribunal. The lower adjudicating authority, while deciding the refund claim under the said notification for the period December 2007 to March 2008 sanctioned the refund to the tune of Rs.15,87,45,674/- towards Bare Pipes, Bare Pipes cleared for coating and M.S. Scrap and rejected refund to the tune of Rs.4,69,25,261/- in respect of value of Coated Pipes and Coating Scrap. Further, the lower adjudicating authority also held that exemption is available to the Excise du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect to duty paid as normal clearances outside the mechanism of Notification No.39/2001-CE, dt.31.07.2001 and that interest was recoverable from appellant M/s PSL Ltd. 3. Shri Anand Nainawati (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant M/s PSL Ltd. argued that refund of Education Cess and SHE Cess is admissible to his client as these levies are not independent in as much as whenever the Basic Excise Duty is NIL , there will be no liability towards payment of Education Cess and SHE Cess. Ld.Advocate relied upon the following case laws in support of his arguments:- i) Dharampal Premchand Ltd Vs CCE 2007 (218) ELT 610 (T) ii) CC Vs Reliance Industries Ltd. 2005 (188) ELT 449 (T) iii) B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ligible only to these levies specified in the exemption notification itself. They relied upon the following case laws:- i) CCE Shillong Vs Dharampal Satyapal Ltd 2012 (275) ELT 71 (Gau.) ii) CCE Dibrugarh Vs Prag Bosimi Synthetics Ltd 2013 (295) ELT 682 (Gau.) iii) Indo Farm Tractors Motors Ltd 2008 (222) ELT 184 (H.P.) iv) Gitanjali Industries Vs CCE Jammu 2010 (254) ELT 131 (Tri-Del) v) CCE Jammu Vs Kaiser Industries Ltd 2013 (298) ELT 636 (Tri-Del) vi) Kamakhya Cosmetics Pharma Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE Guwahati 2009 (246) ELT 413 (Tri-Kolkata) vii) CCE Jammu Vs Jindal Drugs Ltd 2011 (267) ELT 653 (Tri-Del) viii) Genus Electrotec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said Acts as is equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of goods other than the amount of duty paid by utilization of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001: 5.1 It is evident from the above provisions of Notification No.39/2001-CE, dt.31.07.2001 that cash refund of duties imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944, Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Specified Importance) Act, 1955 and Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, is only admissible. There is no mention of refund of Education/SHE Cesses in Notification No.39/2001-CE, dt.31.07.2001. Further, as per the provision of Clause 2(a) of this notification, no cash refund is available to a manufacturer with respect to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined by the appellant M/s PSL Ltd. Appeal filed by the Revenue to that extent is required to be allowed. 7. With respect to denying of credit of Rs.9,93,832/- to the appellant M/s PSL Ltd, it has been observed by the first appellate authority that appellant failed to prove that inputs/services have been used in the coating division and that invoices/bills in respect of which credit is taken were in respect of the Paper Mill Division and not Coating Division. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that no show cause notice was issued to them to explain their case hence this aspect may be remanded back to the original adjudicating authority so that they could explain their case. Accordingly, on the issue of admissibility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
