9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... industrial unit coming into existence on or after 24.12.1997 or an industrial unit existing on or prior to 24.12.1997 having undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than twenty five per cent (25%) on or after 24.12.1997 were eligible to avail the exemption as provided in the said notification. The Appellant carried out substantial expansion at its manufacturing unit in the year 1999 and accordingly, claimed the benefit under the said notification during the period from July 1999 till July 2009. 2.1. As per the Notification, the appellant was eligible for refund of the duty paid in PLA. The Appellant filed their first refund claim before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial expansion of the industrial unit." It was further held that "..... the language in the Notification requires substantial expansion in industrial unit and the expansion is not with reference to any individual section of the unit or machinery in the unit." 3.4. The Department accepted the aforesaid order passed by the CESTAT. 4. Another identical Show Cause Notice bearing C.No.V(15)13/DEMAND/ACJ/2003/1984 dated 05.09.2003, was issued to the appellant by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Jorhat, Assam, demanding erroneous refund amounting to Rs. 15,04,35,465/- sanctioned to the Appellant for the period from July 1999 to November 2002. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh relied upon the aforesaid decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tri-Kolkata) (iii) CCE Vs HCCBPL, 2018 (7) TMI 322 - CESTAT Kolkata. 6.1. The appellant submits that all the orders of the Tribunal cited above categorically held that the appellant has fulfilled the condition of substantial expansion of the unit as required under the Notification No. 33/99-CE and allowed the refund of duty paid in PLA for the earlier period. In the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the scope of the appeal and held that the appellant has not fulfilled the condition of substantial expansion. This issue was not before the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was erroneous refund sanctioned to the appellant for the period in dispute. However, the Ld. Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, we hold that raising the issue of substantial expansion again by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) is bad in law which has attained finality. The Ld. Advocate fairly submits that the issue of eligibility of refund on account payment of Education cess and Higher Secondary Education Cess is against them in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court and hence they have not appealed against this issue. Thus, we observe that the impugned order has decided the issue of substantial expansion, which has already attained finality. 9.2. We observe that the issue is no more res-integra as the Tribunal has already decided the same issue of the appellant for the earlier periods in their favour in the following decisions of this Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
