9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 33/99-CE dated 9/7/1999 to the Respondent. That refund claim of Rs. 44,16,000/- made by the Respondent was also rejected by the Adjudicating authority. That both the Revenue and Respondent herein felt aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original dated 10/9/2009 passed by the Adjudicating authority and appeals were filed before the first appellate authority. That first appellate authority under the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 11/5/2011 allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent and rejected the appeal of the Revenue. That in addition, first appellate authority also allowed payment of interest on the refund due to the appellant under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. That stay application filed by the Revenue was dismissed by this bench under order No. SO/75928/2015 dated 16/9/2015. Revenue approached Guwahati High Court through Writ Petition No. (C)/379/2016 seeking early disposal of appeal pending before CESTAT. Hon'ble High Court as per order dated 16/3/2016 directed this bench to hear and decide this appeal preferably within a period of 02 months. 3. Ld. A.R. argued that because of the following reasons the order passed by the first appellate authority is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm-AI on 27/3/2003. That on 26/5/2003 the said RC was seized by the officers of HQ Anti Evasion in the files withdrawn under panchnama dated 26/5/2003 but no details of the papers in the files seized were given in the panchnama. That vide letter dated 15/7/2003 Respondent brought the fact of seizure of RC by the Anti Evasion Wing on record but no response was received from the department. That his client was not going to gain in any manner by hiding the original RC from the department. That no question was raised by the department when appellant filed return showing payment of duty amounting to Rs. 44,16,000/-. That first appellate authority in para 10 of the Order-in-original dated 10/9/2009 has given a specific finding that no decision was taken by the Division office on their amendment application even after a lapse of six years. That first appellate authority has correctly appreciated all the issues as framed in para 8 of the Order-in-Appeal dated 11/5/2011 and interest is payable as per Guwahati High Court's order in the case of Amalgamated Plantations (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India [ 2013 (296) ELT 13 (Guw.)] 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Respondent was havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) That Premises-II was not registered with the department, therefore, exemption under Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 8/7/1999was wrongly extended by the first appellate authority. (ii) That provision of Section 11B are not applicable to the refunds of Notification No. 33/99-CE and hence no interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act 1944 is payable to the Respondent. 6. So far as point at para 5.1 (i) above is concerned Respondent filed a letter dated 23/1/2003 with Supdt., Central Excise, Amingaon Range intimating their new factory and office address for doing the needful. Lease agreement of the new factory and office premises were also enclosed. Required application under Form A-1 for carrying out amendment was also filed by Respondent 27/3/2003. No communication was sent to the Respondent upto 26/1/2003 when Premises-II was searched. Respondent vide letter dated 15/7/2003 wrote to DC, Central Excise- Guwahati, enclosing a copy of earlier letter dated 23/1/2003, intimating, interalia, that original RC was seized by Anti-Evasion Wing and is still in their possession. It is observed from Panchnama dated 26/5/2003 that certain files, interalia, containing Misc. corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (the date of seizure of documents). In such a scenario Respondent could not have taken the plea that original RC was seized by the officers of HQ Anti Evasion . Secondly, there does not seem to be any motive as to why original RC will be hidden by the Respondent from the Central Excise Authorities. 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. Once it is held that Respondent had a valid Registration for Premises-II with effect from 1/4/2003 then points mentioned at 4 (ii), (iii) & (iv) are settled in favour of the Respondent by the Adjudicating authority as no appeal on these points is made and department has accepted p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2011) 10 SCC 292 = 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 2012 (27) S.T.R. 193 (S.C.), it is a well-settled proposition of law that a fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. 30. In the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the aforesaid two provisions, referred to a circular dated 1-10-2002 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi wherein and whereby the Board stressed that the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are attracted automatically for any refund (emphasis ours) sanctioned beyond a period of three months. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that liability of the Revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11B(1) and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made. 31. We also find that a S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
