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

2024 (3) TMI 402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... terms of Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, the refund claims were sanctioned by passing a speaking order during the period from 25.04.2007 to 31.01.2008. In that circumstances, a showcause notice issued to the appellant by invoking extended period of limitation on 15.03.2012, is not sustainable as held by the decision of the Hon ble Jammu Kashmir High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS KRISHI RASAYAN EXPORTS PVT. LTD. [ 2023 (7) TMI 661 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT] , wherein the Hon ble High Court has held The revenue, if it is of the opinion that the Adjudicating Authority has made an erroneous refund in favour of assessee to which it was not otherwise eligible, can avail the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 07. 2.1 The Appellant entered into an agreement dated 09.07.2004 with M/s. Henkel SPIC India Ltd. for manufacture of the detergent powder under the brand name of Mr. White , Check and Henko Stain Champion . M/s. Henkel India Limited., Chennai dispatches the Henko Detergent Premix to their clearing and forwarding agent, M/s. Sadana Warehousing Agencies (P) Ltd., under the cover of duty paying invoice. The Henko Detergent Premix so dispatched is received by the Appellant under the commercial invoices of M/s. Henkel India Ltd. without reflecting the central excise duty component. 2.2 Appellant after receiving the Henko Detergent Premix manufactures the detergent powder by using three machines, namely, Pan Mixer, Cage Mill, and Vibro Sieve. At .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... payment of duty in cash. The Appellant has been periodically claiming refund of the duty paid in PLA in terms of the above notification during the period from October 2003 till April 2007. During the period from 25.04.2007 to 31.01.2008, the Appellant filed claims for refund of the duty paid in cash in respect of the goods (namely, Mr. White , Check , and Henko Stain Champion Detergent Powder) cleared from their factory and they were duly sanctioned by the Department by separate orders all of which have attained finality. 2.5 On 04.04.2008, the officers of the Anti-Evasion Unit, Central Excise Headquarters, Shillong conducted search of the factory premises of the Appellant and also recorded the statements of the employees of the Appellant. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... notification 32/1999-CE clearly provides that the exemption provided vide the notification shall apply for a period of ten years from the date of commencement of commercial production, and therefore, the amending notification is not applicable to the Appellant. Also, it was submitted that the refund orders have attained finality, and issuance of SCN without challenging the refund orders is ex-facie erroneous and perverse. 2.9 However, without considering the submissions, the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Guwahati vide the impugned Order-in-Original dated 25.03.2013 confirmed recovery of the already sanctioned refund amounting to Rs.60,68,993/- along with interest and penalty. 2.10 Being aggrieved with the said order, the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cise duty in favour of assessee is sanctioned by the competent authority after passing a speaking order and which order is appealable under section 35 of the 12 Act, parallel proceedings seeking recovery of the sanctioned refund cannot be launched by the Adjudicating Authority. Unless the orders of sanctioning refund passed by the Adjudicating Authority are reversed in appeal or revision under the Act, Section 11 cannot be invoked by terming such sanctioned refund of excise duty as erroneous refund by holding collateral proceedings under section 11A of the Act. Any duty, which is paid /refunded to the assessee after holding formal proceedings and passing speaking orders in favour of the assessee, cannot be termed as erroneous refund . The r .....

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