9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reby the Hon ble High Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. The Hon ble High Court has held that The appellant having been once found to be eligible for exemptions and refund of duty paid, denial of benefit of exemptions and refund on the ground of delay, in our considered opinion, will cause grave injustice which cannot be permitted. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that non-following of procedural requirement cannot deny the substantive benefit, otherwise available to the assessee. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Ex. Appeal No.75441-75444 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 77290-77293/2018 - Dated:- 10-8-2018 - MR. P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate for the Appellant Shri, S. S. Chattopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Since common issue is involved in all these appeals, all the four appeals are taken up together for disposal. The details of the appeals are as under:- SL. No. Appeal No. Name of Party Period Date of Entitlement Filed On Amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that in terms of Notification No.20/2007 (Supra), it was to be ascertained first that the assessee is eligible for exemption and then only the refund claim was to be filed. It is his submission that at the time of beginning of the Financial Year the option was required to be made and accordingly they filed the exemption claim under the said Notification vide letter dt. 2/04/2014 which was granted to them vide letter dt. 30/06/2016. 6. The Ld. Advocate vehemently argued that there was regular exchange of correspondence with the Department on the issue of entitlement of exemption under the said Notification. It is not the case here that they did not file the refund claim within the prescribed time limit. The Ld. Advocate further submits that after receipt of the letter from the Department, they filed refund claims on regular basis which are being sanctioned from time to time. It was only owing to the delay on the part of the Department in clearing the status for entitlement for exemption, the refund claim for the earlier period could not be filed on time. The refund claim has been filed within one year from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be accepted. He then issued show cause notice dated 25.7.2006 and vide order dated 8.11.2006 rejected the claim of appellant for refund of duty on the ground of limitation. 6. The appellant challenged the order dated 8.11.2006 by filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also dismissed the same vide order dated 9.10.2007 on the ground that claim for refund of duty paid was belated and hence cannot be allowed. Undeterred the appellant filed another appeal before the Tribunal which held that statement of duty paid made in RT-12 returns in the absence of specific claim for refund of duty does not fulfill the conditions of Notification. The Tribunal also held that claim for refund of duty made after six years cannot be accepted. On these findings, the Tribunal vide order dated 29.2.2016 dismissed the appellant s appeal. It is in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 7. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that statement of duty paid submitted in the RT12 returns by the 7th of next month in which the duty was paid from the account current was substantial compliance and therefore the Assistant Commissioner ought to have refunded the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /7 before 24th day of December, 1997 and then file every month 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 appellant having been once found to be eligible for exemptions and refund of duty paid, denial of benefit of exemptions and refund on the ground of delay, in our considered opinion, will cause grave injustice which cannot be permitted. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that non-following of procedural requirement cannot deny the substantive benefit, otherwise available to the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
