9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of duty, 15% interest shall be payable from the date immediately after the expiry of the period of 30 days. The Appellants stated that the retrospective amendment only validates recovery of CENVAT Credit availed between 08/07/199 to 22/12/2002. The demands in these three cases have gone beyond 22/12/2002 and sought recovery of CENVAT Credit lying unutilzed as on 28/02/2003. They cited the decision of the Tribunal Kolkata in the case of M/S HUNWAL TEA ESTATE VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DIBRUGARH [ 2018 (7) TMI 1356 - CESTAT KOLKATA] where under the same facts and circumstances, the Tribunal Kolkata has set aside the demand and allowed their appeal - the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hunwal Tea Estate is squar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of Rs.8,58,029/-, as erroneous refund, in terms of the retrospective amendment of the Notification No.33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, brought by Section 153 of the Finance Act, 2003. The Appellant preferred appeal before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals), Guwahati, who dismissed the appeal vide Order-in-Appeal under the Order-in-Appeal dated 13.11.2006. The Appellants went on further appeal before the Tribunal, who held that the Hon ble High Court s order upholding the constitutional validity of retrospective amendment is to be followed and the credit availed lying unutilized was required to be demanded from the Appellant. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority with the direction to decide the matter afresh after affording r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal No Ex/355/2008 between Hunwal Tea Estate Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh held that the Revenue has acted beyond the scope of Clause 145(1) of the Finance Bill,2003, by raising the demand of recovery of credit till 28/02/2003 instead of 22/12/2002. The Appeal filed by the Appellant in the present case bears the same question of law as well as facts and circumstances and hence the said decision is squarely applicable to their case. (iii) The exemption notification ceased to have any effect on Tea Industry on withdrawal of Basis Excise duty on Tea w.e.f.28/02/2003. (iv) There was a void between the date of giving retrospective effect and the date of applicability of the notification. The retrospective effect can only be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was upheld by the Hon ble Guwahati High Court vide its Order dated 21/09/2006.The above said amendment envisaged that CENVAT Credit availed shall be payable retrospectively within a period of 30 days from the day the Finance Bill received the assent of the president and in the event of non payment of duty, 15% interest shall be payable from the date immediately after the expiry of the period of 30 days. Accordingly, the impugned orders confirmed the demands as mentioned in Paras 1 to 4 above, being the CENVAT credit lying unutilized as on 28/02/2003. It is the case of the Appellant that this demand has gone beyond what is envisaged in the retrospective amendment. The Appellants stated that the retrospective amendment only validates recover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
