9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t'). 2. The facts giving rise to filing of Writ Petition are as under: (i) The Assessee Company under the orders from the Department of Economic Affairs, Government of India was placed with an order to supply 5250 Metric Tons of Stainless Steel Coin Blanks for 1 Re, 50 paise and 25 paise denominations. A part of the quantity viz., 2600 Metric Tons was procured from abroad and supplied by SAIL while the remaining quantity was manufactured and supplied indigenously by the Assessee's factory at Salem. The Department of Economic Affairs, purchasers of these coin blanks requested the Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs (C.B.E.C.) Government of India to exempt the Assessee from the payment of Excise duty in respect of entire quantity of such Stainless Steel Coin Blanks supplied by the Assessee Company. At the request of the Department of Economic Affairs, the Central Board of Excise and Customs (C.B.E.C.) granted Ad-hoc exemption vide its Ad-hoc Exemption Order No.11/11/94 dated 21.09.1994 on the said entire quantity of 2640 M.T. of Stainless Steel Coin Blanks supplied to the Department of Economic Affairs. The said exemption notification was clarified la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rics, covered by the tariff item "friction cloth" was a raw material for the manufacture of shoes. Duty of excise was not leviable on it prior to 1.8.1960. A Notification dated 1.8.1960 issued by the department introduced levy on the item. Bata Shoe Co. started making payments of duty from the said date under protest. While so, they represented to Government of India, Ministry of Finance for exemption from payment of duty on the fabrics and ultimately, on 26.09.1963, the Central Board of Revenue informed them that no duty was payable on friction cloth. On the basis of the Board's letter dated 26.9.1963, the shoe company applied for refund of the duty paid on the fabric from 24.04.1962 to 17.6.1966. The original authority rejected the claim for refund of the duty paid for the period prior to 26.9.1963 and allowed refund for the subsequent period. The rejection of the refund claim for the period prior to 26.09.1963 was challenged by the company and, ultimately, the dispute reached the High Court. The question considered by the Court was whether the claim for the period prior to 26.9.1963 was barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The High Court fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d-hoc exemption order, was the subject matter of that case. It was argued by the assessee that the cause of action for the claim refund had arisen only after the ad-hoc exemption order was issued and hence the time limit for the claim was to be computed from the date of issue of exemption order. The Tribunal found that there was no provision in the Customs Act for computing the time limit as suggested by the assessee and accordingly, rejection of the refund claim was upheld. There was a claim for a period prior to 28.9.96. For reasons which we have already noted, the above view taken by the Tribunal in Ion Exchange (supra) must be followed in this case. We also note that the above view was followed by the Tribunal in the case of K.Viswanathan (supra) also. 13. It was argued by Ld.Counsel that, if the ad-hoc exemption order of the Central Govt. covering the goods already cleared on payment of duty was not given effect to, the assessee would be put to hardships which was not intended by the Govt. This argument was opposed by Ld, SDR by relying on the Supreme Court's decision in J.K.Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. And Another Vs. Union of India and Others- 1987 (32) ELT 234 (SC) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 merely on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Act. She submitted that Section 11B of the Act makes an exception for the excise duty paid under protest and no limitation then applying. She has drawn the attention to Second Proviso to 11B which clearly stipulates that limitation shall not apply to the duty or interest that has been paid 'under protest'. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the ad-hoc or specific exemption is for whole of the quantity and the Assessee was not liable to pay any Excise duty on such clearances of 2640 M.Ts. made by the Assessee. The entire duty paid by the Assessee which was necessary for the clearances of the goods at that point of time on the said quantity deserves to be wholly refunded and the duty paid for the period prior to such Exemption Notification has to be refunded to the Assessee treating the same as paid 'under protest'. She urged that it should be treated only as a payment made 'under protest' and it has to be refunded by the Central Excise Department. By not doing so, the exemption granted to the Asseessee was negatived by the Adjudicating Authority and the Assessee Company being a G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onary and The Oxford English Dictionary as under: Black's Law Dictionary ad hoc - Formed for a particular purpose. The Oxford English Dictionary ad hoc - (a) For this purpose, to this end; for the particular purpose in hand or in view. (b) attrib, or as adj. Devoted, appointed, etc., to or for some particular purpose. (c) Hence (nonce-wds.): ad hoc v., to use ad hoc measures or contrivances, to improvise; so adhoc(k)ing Vbl.sb,; ad hoc-ery, the use of such measures; ad'hocism (also as one word), the use of ad hoc measures, esp. as a deliberate means of avoiding long-term policy; ad-hoc-ness, the nature of, or devotion to, ad hoc principles or practice. 10.The exemption in the present case was granted to the specific Assessee, in the specific facts and for specific quantity of the Coin Blanks manufactured and supplied by the Assessee. This was done for the purpose of maintaining the value of Coin Blanks itself. The payment of excise duty at the time of clearance of goods in anticipation of exemption right from the day one was therefore with the ardent hope of real and effective exemption and the refund of duty paid by the Assessee under compulsion for clearance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tments. On the other hand, it causes anguish to this Court and is deprecable, to say the least. We are also also little bit surprised by the reasons assigned by the CESTAT in distinguishing the clear Judgment of Kolkatta High Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd (supra). In that case, where the Cotton fabrics, covered by the tariff item "friction cloth" was a raw material for the manufacture of shoes under the Notification dated 1.8.1960 issued by the Department, the Government imposed the levy on the said item. Bata Shoe Co. started making payments of duty from the said date 'under protest'. While doing so, they represented to Government of India, Ministry of Finance for exemption from payment of duty on the fabrics and ultimately, on 26.09.1963, the Central Board of Revenue informed them that no duty was payable on 'friction cloth'. On the basis of the Board's letter dated 26.9.1963, the shoe company applied for refund of the duty paid on the fabric from 24.04.1962 to 17.6.1966. The original authority rejected the claim for refund of the duty paid for the period prior to 26.9.1963 and allowed refund for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
