9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal filed against the Orders-in-Original dated 28.12.2005 and 29.12.2005 passed by the Assisstant Commissioner, which sanctioned the refund claims of the Appellant. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Tea in Assam. They availed the benefit of Notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/1999. The Appellant filed refund claims totally amounting to Rs.42,88,600/- in respect of the Tea and Tea waste manufactured and cleared during the period 8/99 to February 2003, other than by way of utilization of Cenvat credit, as provided for in Para 2(b) of the said notification. The refund claims were sanctioned by the Assistant commissioner, however, on appeal by the department the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to claim the refund, as held by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Chamong Tea Company Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh, as reported in 2022(5)TMI 8 Guwahati HC. Accordingly, he supported the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 6. The issue involved in the present appeal is eligibility of refund claim filed by the appellant. The refund claims have been filed by the appellant in terms of Notification 33/99 CE dated 08/07/99. We observe the Board has clarified vide letter No.354/8/98-CE TRU (Part- II) dated 06/10/1999 that the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable in case of refunds claimed unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. (i) substantial expansion of not less than 25% has taken place on or before 24th of December 1997. (ii) filing every month a statement of duty paid from the account current to the Assisstant Commissioner by 7th of the next month in which the duty has been paid from the account current. 9. From the Order-in-Original passed by the Assisstant Commissioner, we observe that the Appellant has fulfilled the first condition of 25% of expansion as on the stipulated date. This fact has not been disputed in the impugned order also by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the refund sanctioned only on the ground that the Appellant has not filed the statement of duty paid from the account current to the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/99 is a mandatory requirement which must be complied by the appellant to claim the refund. The relevant para of the said decision is reproduced below: "15. However, in the facts of the present case, there are no clear averments made by the appellant that conditions prescribed under Clause 2(A) of the Notification No.33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 has been fulfilled by the appellant. Rather entire thrust of the appellant's case is that notwithstanding the delay of about nine (9) years in claiming the refund, since limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not attracted for claiming benefits under the notification, the appellant is entitled to the refund claims made. Such contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
