9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the Ahmedabad Bench of the CESTAT [ 2021 (11) TMI 112 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] . After considering the various decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court the issue was decided in favour of the appellant by holding From the above provision it is absolutely clear that any notification issued under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2A) come into force on a date when it is published and offered for sale on the date of its issue. The impugned order is not sustainable in law, therefore, the same is set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant - Appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. S. S. GARG , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) For the Appellant : Ms. Shreya Dahiya , Advocate For the Respondent : Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was liable to be paid on the date of notification i.e., on 22.11.2014 or 02.12.2014. The Appellant also placed on record an order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 08.10.2015 whereby for the prior period refund has been sanctioned to the appellant on identical facts. The said order of refund passed by the Assistant Commissioner was upheld up to the High Court of Calcutta vide its order dated 09.02.2023. 4. The adjudicating authority without considering the submissions made by the Appellant and denied the refund. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the decisions of the adjudicating authority. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the material on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 (Kar.) PARAM INDS. LTD. VS. UOI 2020 (373) ELT 113 (T) RUCHI SOYA INDS. LTD. Vs. CC 9. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record as well as the decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. We find that identical issue in the appellant s own case was considered by the Ahmedabad Bench of the CESTAT. After considering the various decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court the issue was decided in favour of the appellant by holding as under: 04. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The issue involved in the present case are: a) Whether any exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : In the light of the above facts and circumstances, find that M/s Indian oil Corporation Limited, Bongaigaon Refinery, P.O.Dhaligaon, Dist. Chirang, (Assam) is eligible for refund of differential Central Excise duty alongwith corresponding Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess amounting to Rs. 1,48,07,075/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Eight Lakhs Seven Thousand Seventy Five) only paid on excise invoice issued on 12.11.2014 and 02.12.2014 for clearance of HSD and MS from their factory. 12. The said refund order was challenged by the Department before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the department vide its order dated 28.03.2016. Further, the Department challenged the order of Ld. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled for refund. The relevant paragraph is quoted hereinbelow:- From the above search, it is clear that the notification No.22/2014 was published on 22nd November, 2014 and notification no. 24/2014 was published on 11th December, 2014 therefore, both the notifications will be effective from the date of Its publication i.e. 22nd November, 2014 and 11th December, 2014 respectively therefore, the contention of the lower authority that the notification will be effective from the date of its issue of notification is absolutely incorrect. Therefore, refund on this ground is admissible to the appellant. The above factual position is not being disputed by the revenue more so when the order passed by the Ahmedabad Tribunal has been given effect t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal has held in para 5 and 6 as under : 5. On careful reading of the said judgment, we find that the said judgment is not in reference of amended Section 25(4)(a)(b) of Customs Act, 1962. We observe that despite pointing out this legal position to both the Lower Authorities they have brushed aside even the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Param Industries Ltd. which has considered the judgment of Ganesh Das Bhojraj, therefore, both the Lower Authorities have not followed the judicial discipline. The decision of Karnataka High Court was subsequently upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court as cited (supra). On the identical issue the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s. M.D. Overseas Ltd. also taken the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
