9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such conclusion of the Chartered Engineer has not been disputed either by the original or first Appellate Authority. The opinion expressed by the Chartered Engineer may be accepted to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant has duly expanded the installed capacity over 25% and satisfies the substantial expansion as per Notification. The appellant has satisfied the requirement of substantial expansion by more than 25% - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. E/76326/2014 - FO/75443/2019 - Dated:- 8-4-2019 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mrs. C. Alam (Gupta) Advocate And Sri S. Das, Advocate For the Appellant (s) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Ld. Advocate submitted that the main ground on which the refund claim dated 10/08/2005 is rejected is that it is hit by time bar, since it was filed several years after substantial expansion was carried out. In this connection she submits that the refund claim made under Area Based Exemption will not be subjected to the time limits specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. In this connection she relied on the decision of the Hon ble Guwahati High Court in Central Excise Appeal reported as 2018 (361) ELT 393 (Guw). The Hon ble High Court held that : the appellant having been once found to be eligible for exemption and refund of duty paid, denial of benefit of exemption and refund on the ground of delay, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Broiling Rotorvane Section (Rolling Table) 10 11 10 12 He also reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that even if the time limit under Section 11B is not applicable, it should have been filed within a reasonable time within the period of limitation. 8. We have heard both sides and perused the records. The appellant has claimed the benefit of Area Based Exemption under Notification No. 33/99 dated- 8.7.1999 which stands rejected. We note that there are discrepancies in the total number of machines installed in various sections prior to and subsequent to the expansion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nth s statement of duty paid from the account current to the Assistant Commissioner. And, if these two conditions were fulfilled, the appellant was entitled to refund of the amount of duty paid. It is not in dispute that the Industrial Unit has undertaken increase by more than 25%. Clause 2 (a) of the Notification only says that the manufacturer shall submit a statement of the duty paid by 7th of next month in which the duty has been paid from the account current. The Notification nowhere mandates the manufacturer to submit a separate claim for refund of duty paid. The appellant has admittedly been submitting statements of the duty paid from account current in RT-12 returns within time with all details before the Assistant Commissioner. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund of duty paid cannot be denied for want of separate statement of such duty paid. A long standing decision adopting a particular construction which may have been acted upon by persons in the general conduct of affairs may not be departed from on the doctrine of stare decisis. 10. With these findings, we answer all the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant. We accordingly set aside the orders dated 8.11.2006, 9.10.2007 and 29.02.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, respectively and allow the appeal with cost of ₹ 1,000/-. 10. The ratio of the above judgment is that refund claims under Notification No. 33/99 is not restricted by the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
