9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is that under the incentive scheme covered by the above Notification, the petitioner was entitled to refund of excise duty amounting to Rs.56,64,718.00. The claim so put forward was rejected by the adjudicating authority but on appeal, plea of the petitioner was upheld as follows :- 6. It is evident from the said notification that the manufacturer has to prove their eligibility of the said exemption notification by proving that their Unit has undergone substantial expansion as stipulated above and file every month the statement of the duty paid. If these two conditions are fulfilled the manufacturer is entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No.33/99-CE dated 08/07/99 and it is not necessary to file a formal refund claim. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate, inventory of plants machineries both pre and post expansion duly authenticated by the registerred CE and authorized signatory of the unit, detailed evaluation report of the CE determining the pre/post expansion installed capacity, areas of expansion with list of specific plants and machineries installed on or after 24/12/1997 and diagrammatic representation of the lay out of pre and post expansion plants and machineries duly approved by the CIF etc. within one year from the date of Trade Notice and expressed their intention to claim the benefit of the said notification. After this, if any information was needed by the department, the department should have asked for the same and should have decided whether the appellant Unit has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ider the claim of the petitioner without any reason. After the said letter, a period of six months has expired. The petitioner points out that as per instructions of the CBEC contained in Excise Manual, the refund could not be withheld only on the ground that an appeal was being filed unless the appellate authority grants stay. No stay has been granted and thus there was no justification for withholding the benefit due under an order of the appellate authority. Notice was issued and time was given to file reply twice but no reply has been filed. In view of above, we direct respondent No.3 to take steps for implementation of order of the appellate authority in accordance with law, in absence of stay being granted within six weeks from today. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
