9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,57,527/- is sanctioned for which further action shall be taken by the Original Adjudicating Authority. In case of the refund claim of ₹ 14,718/-, no finding has been given by the lower Authority in the impugned Order - the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication to the Original Adjudicating Authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/50550/2014-SM - A/54251/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 8-6-2017 - Mr. Ashok K. Arya, (Technical Member) Present Ms. Sukriti Das Advocate for the appellant Present Shri G.R. Singh AR for the respondent ORDER Per: Ashok K. Arya 1. M/s K S Oils Ltd. is in appeal against Order in Appeal No.153/2013 dated 04.10.2013 whereunder refund claim amounting to ₹ 2,72,245/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are required as per proviso h (i) (E) and (F) of the Notification No.17/2009 (supra), then why the refund claim cannot be sanctioned and why there is requirement of individual certificate? In other words, when the requirement has been fulfilled substantially, I do not think that it is necessary that each and every document is to be certified individually. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CC (Preventive) Amritsar v. Malwa Industries Ltd 2009, (235) ELT 214 (SC) has observed that an assessee should not be deprived of entitled benefit by interpreting narrowly the conditions provided in law. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the said decision has observed as under: 20. We, as noticed hereinbefore, have no quarrel with the propos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chargeable to nil rate of duty or where the exemption from the whole of the duty of excise leviable is granted on any of the six categories enumerated, the manufacturer is required to make a declaration and give an undertaking, as specified in the form annexed while claiming exemption for the first time under this notification and thereafter before the 15th day of April of each financial year. As found by the forums below, including CEGAT, factually, the declaration and the undertaking were not submitted by the appellants. This is not an empty formality. It is the foundation for availing the benefits under the notification. It cannot be said that they are mere procedural requirements, with no consequences attached for non-observance. The c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed. In this regard, he has cited Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court s decision in case of Principal Commissioner Service Tax V/s R.R. Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (45) STR 5 (A.P.). However, when conditions of the Notification have been substantially followed, just not filing individual certificate cannot adversely affect the entitlement of benefit of refund to the appellant. The Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in case of Malwa Industry Limited (supra) for the present facts supports this view point. Therefore, the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court s decision (supra) is not applicable. 4.2. It has been pointed out by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant that in case of the refund claim of ₹ 14,718/- [the breakup of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
