Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (12) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Notification No. 20/2007-CE - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra as an identical issue has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of M/S HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, DIBRUGARH [ 2023 (10) TMI 991 - CESTAT KOLKATA ], wherein it has been held that the application filed before the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court cannot be construed as time barred. Thus, the applications filed by the Appellant for fixation of special rates of valuation on 29.09.2010, for the FY 2009-10 for each of the units, is not time barred - the impugned orders set aside - appeal allowed. - HON BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN , MEMBER ( TEC .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 and Notification No.20/2008-CE dated 28.03.2008 (effective from 01.04.2008), wherein the quantum of refund was restricted to the limit of value additions. The rate of central excise duty refund in respect of goods manufactured by the Appellant was reduced to 34% of total duty paid. The amended Notifications were however struck down by the Ld. Single Judge of the Hon ble Gauhati High Court vide its order dated 24.06.2009. Thereafter, the department went for an appeal before the divisional bench of the Hon ble Gauhati High Court in W.A. No. 243/2009 whereby the Hon ble High Court stayed the Single Bench order of the same court vide interim order dated 11.08.2009. This interim order was further amended by the Hon ble .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issioner of Central Excise, Guwahati vide the impugned orders rejected the aforesaid applications on the grounds that subject applications are barred by limitation inasmuch as Para 2.1(1) of the Notification No. 32/1999-CE (supra) and Para 3(1) of the Notification No. 20/2007-CE (supra) provides that such application must not be made later than the 30th day of September for the same financial year. Being aggrieved with impugned order, the Appellant has filed present appeals. 4. The Appellant submits that the issue is no longer res integra as this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Commissioner of CX, ST, Dibrugarh 2023 (10) TMI 991- CESTAT, Kolkata, dealt with identical issue as to whether special value addition applicati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the findings in the impugned orders. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 7. We observe that the issue is no longer res integra as an identical issue has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Commissioner of CX, ST, Dibrugarh 2023 (10) TMI 991- CESTAT, Kolkata, wherein it has been held that the application filed before the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court cannot be construed as time barred. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below: 6. We find that the application for special rate fixing for the period 2009-10 to 2016-17 were initially held that they have filed the applications for fixing special rate after 30th September of the same year and is barred by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the refund of the excise duty shall be on the actual excise duty paid on actual value addition made by the manufacturers undertaking manufacturing activities . . . they do not take away any vested right conferred under the earlier notifications . 6.2 Further, the Hon ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Jyoty Labs reported in 2021 (378) ELT 269 (Gau.), has held that making such application for fixation of special rate under Notification No.32/99-CE and Notification No.31/2008-CE, after the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of V.V.F. (supra) were in time. 6.3 In view of the above, we hold that as all the applications were filed by the appellants before 20.04.2020. In that circumstances, all the applicati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates