9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is found that it is not legally correct for the Department to reject the same as a refund to be granted. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CHANDRA KISHORE JHA VERSUS MAHAVIR PRASAD ORS. [ 1999 (9) TMI 948 - SUPREME COURT ] held that 'It is a well settled salutary principle that if a Statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.' If the law ordains the authority to do a particular thing in a particular manner, the authorities should do the thing only in the prescribed manner and not otherwise. In the instant case, Revenue having not followed the procedure prescribed for recovery of the alleged excess self-credit cannot reject the same. The appellants have already availed the self-credit and therefore, such an order rejecting the credit has no effect and cannot be implemented. Thus, the order becomes superfluous - the alleged wrongful credit has not been held to be so in a proper manner. Therefore, the rejection of cash refund of Rs.34,86,309/- for the month of July 2011 is not legally correct. Out of the claim of refund of Rs.34, 86,309/-, the appellants s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... milar set of grounds. The deputy commissioner, vide order 23.02.2012, sanctioned refund of Rs.2,98,91,511/-; however, he had in addition, adjusted the appropriated an amount of Rs.1,06,59,994/- along with interest of Rs.7,62,755/-. On an appeal filed by the appellants, Commissioner (Appeals), vide common order dated 12/2/2014, taking note of the of order, dated 23/2/2012 modified by interim order dated 3/6/2013, passed by Hon ble High Court, directed releasing of only 50% of the amount of refund on execution of undertaking/surety bond and keeping the balance 50% in abeyance till the final judgment by the High Court. 3. Shri T.R. Rustogi, Learned Counsel for the appellants gives a brief background of the issue and submits that Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14/11/2002 was issued to provide exemption for goods manufactured in specified areas of J K. In terms of this notification, the amount of excise duty equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of goods, other than the amount of duty paid by utilization of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004, is exempted. In order to avail exemption, the manufacturer was required to submit to the ACCE/DCCE a st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t relates to the petitioner s unit. Department moved the High Court seeking modification of the interim order in all the petitions filed in this regard; Hon ble High Court of J K modified the interim order dated 23/2/2012, vide order dated 3/6/2013, directing the revenue to release the respondent entrepreneurs 50% of the amount due to them in terms of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, subject to furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Commissioner within a period of four weeks of their furnishing the said surety. The judgement of the single judge of J K High Court in Reckit Benckiser (supra) case stood overruled by the Division Bench, following the judgement dated 22-04-2020 of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs VVF Ltd and another in Civil Appeal No.2256-2263 of 2020. 5. In respect of Appeal No. E/52756/2014, learned Counsel submits that the impugned orders reject self-credit availed of Rs.1,06,59,994/- which is illegal inasmuch as the procedure prescribed under Para 2C(g) of the Notification No.19/2008 dated 27.03.2008 was not followed; the Notification prescribes that once the assessee has availed self-credit and submits the detai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,59,994/- (the differential of 34% of the amount of the duty restricted for self-credit by virtue of amending notifications and 100% of the duty paid cash). It is the case of the appellants that they have availed 100% credit in view of the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Jammu Kashmir in the case of Reckit Benkiser (supra) and that the Department cannot reject the refund without following the procedure laid down under the notification. We find that Para 2C of the Notification No.19/2008 provides as under: 2C Notwithstanding anything contained in subparagraph 2B above,- (a) the manufacturer at his own option, may take credit of the amount calculated in the manner specified in paragraph 2 in his account current, maintained in terms of the Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Such amount credited in the account current may be utilized by the manufacturer for payment of duty, in the manner specified under rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004, in subsequent months, and such payment shall be deemed to be payment in cash; (b) the credit of the refund amount may be taken by the manufacturer in his account current, by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the extent of utilisation of such irregular or excess credit. 9. From the above, it is very clear that in cases where the appellant has taken self-credit in a wrongful manner, the inadmissible credit needs to be recovered, if not reversed by the assessee within the specified period as intimated by the authorities, as if it is a recovery of duty of excise erroneously refunded. In the instant case, it is not on record if the authorities have given any notice to the appellants to reverse the credit and whether any Show Cause Notice to recover the excess credit availed in terms of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. We find that it is not legally correct for the Department to reject the same as a refund to be granted. We find that Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra Kishore Jha Vs Mahavir Prasad Others (1999) 8 SCC 266 held that 17. ---- It is a well settled salutary principle that if a Statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner----. Hon ble Apex Court further held in the case of Cherukuri Mani Vs Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh Others (2015) 13 SCC 722 that 14. Where the law pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
