2019 (8) TMI 1681 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of exemption in terms of Clause -5(b) of Notification No. 20/2007 CE dated April 25, 2007 - Sanction of self-credit / refund - Section 35E of CEA - HELD THAT - The claim of the respondent was allowed only after complete scrutiny of all the concerned authorities of the appellant, including physical verification in the course of which all relevant materials and documents were duly scrutinized and we find that the Commissioner was right in his interpretation of Clause 5(b) of the Notification and to take the depreciated value of plant and machinery as on 31-03-2006 in determining the percentage of increase in the fixed capital investment in plant and machinery in absence of any mention of Original Book Value in the said Notification. In view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Gauhati in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Jellalpore Tea Estate, 2011 (3) TMI 11 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT , the instant proceedings against the respondent by taking recourse to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act for recovery of alleged erroneous refund tantamount to circumventing the prescribed law, is clearly impermissible. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Change of company name for the respondent.
2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 20/2007 - CE.
3. Alleged misstatement of facts and furnishing of fictitious documents.
4. Review of the Commissioner's order.
5. Interpretation of Clause 5(b) of the Notification.
6. Barred by limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Act.
7. Sustainability of the appeal by the Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The Respondent filed a Misc. Application for a change of the company name, which was allowed.
2. The Respondent sought exemption under Notification No. 20/2007 - CE for expanding plant and machinery.
3. A Show Cause Notice was issued alleging misstatement of facts and use of fictitious documents by the Respondent.
4. The Commissioner, Dibrugarh, dropped the charges against the Respondent, which was reviewed by the Committee of the Chief Commissioner.
5. The interpretation of Clause 5(b) of the Notification was crucial in determining the eligibility for the benefit.
6. The Respondent argued that the demand for the period May 2007 to November 2009 was barred by limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Act.
7. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected based on the scrutiny of authorities and the decision of the Gauhati High Court in a similar case.

Key Points:
- The Commissioner's interpretation of the Notification and consideration of depreciated value were upheld.
- The proceedings against the Respondent for recovery of alleged erroneous refund were deemed impermissible.
- The appeal by the Department was rejected, citing relevant legal precedents and the decision of the Gauhati High Court.

This judgment highlights the importance of proper interpretation of legal provisions, scrutiny of documents, and adherence to statutory limitations in excise matters. The decision provides clarity on the eligibility criteria for exemptions and the consequences of misstatements or fictitious documents in claiming benefits under relevant notifications.