Basis for deciding Refund claim

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1492

Case: DHUNSERI TEA ESTATE versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DIBRUGARH

Citation: 2011-TIOL-1446-CESTAT-KOL

Issue:- Refund under Notification No. 33/99-CE - Claim to be decided on the basis of monthly returns filed by assessee – Filing of statement procedural condition – non filing of which will be result in denial of refund.

Brief Facts:- The appellants herein had filed a refund claim for the amount of duty paid by them through PLA during the relevant period July, 1999 to March, 2003 claiming the benefit of state area based exemption given under Notification 33199-C.E., dated 8-7-1999. The lower authority issued a show-cause notice for rejecting the claim for area based exemption under Notification No. 33199. The appellants contested the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority who after considering the facts the case came to the conclusion that the appellants are eligible for benefit of Notification No. 33199 as they have complied with the requirement of expansion of 25% of the production capacity as stipulated in the said Notification. Coming to such conclusion, he dropped the proceedings. Being aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Com-missioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has upheld the eligibility of the appellants' claim for the benefit of Notification 33/99, but has rejected the claim of the appellants for refund of the said amount paid through PLA during the July, 1999 to March, 2003 on the ground that the appellants had not filed the statement of duty by the stipulated date as mentioned in the Notification.

Appellant’s Contention:- Appellant draws our attention to the fact that RT-12 Returns for the period July, 1999 to March, 2003, were filed with the authorities indicating that they were claiming benefits under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. It was further submitted that the impugned order has not considered this fact with the proper perspective and has set aside the claim made by the appellants. It was further submitted that the stipulated date which is mentioned in the Notification is a procedural aspect as has been held by the Bench in the case of C.C.E., Dibrugarh v. Napuk Tea Estate.

Respondent’s Contention:- Respondent for the Revenue submits that the refund claim if any needs to be sanctioned if they file statement within time and in this case the refund claims have been filed beyond stipulated date as mentioned in the said Notification.

Reasoning of Judgment:- It can be seen from the above reproduction that the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion only if RT-12 Returns were filed which show the duty payment and, the eligibility of the party. In this case, the statement produced by the Id. Counsel indicates that the appellants had filed RT-The 12 Returns with the lower authorities wherein there was a claim for benefit of Notification 33/99. If that be so, we find that the ratio of the decision of this Bench in the case of Napuk Tea Estate squarely covers the issue in of favour of the appellant. It was held by the Court that the portion of the order which is against the appellant and challenged for rejecting the claim is set aside by the Court.

Decision:- Appeal allowed with consequential relief.

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1492

Post a Comment

Query