Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 710 - AT - Central ExciseRefund - Benefit of exemption Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 01.03.06 - Actual user condition - procurement at concessional rate of duty - conditions - unjust enrichment - For manufacturing of fertilisers, respondents were procuring sulphuric acid following the procedure as laid down in Central Excise (Removal of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacturing of excisable goods) Rules, 2001 - For following the procedures of the said Rules, respondents are required to take permission from the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, which they applied for - During the pendency of such permission, the respondents in order to continue their production had to prefer to procure quantity of sulphuric acid on payment of appropriate rate of duty. After consuming the same in the manufacturing of fertilisers, respondents filed a refund claim with the authorities below for the refund of the amount of central excise duty paid by them as per provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Held that:- As per the decision in the case of UOI v. Suksha International, [ 1989 (1) TMI 316 - SUPREME COURT ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an interpretation unduly restricting the scope of beneficial provision is to be avoided so that it may not take away with one hand what the policy gives with the other - In the Union of India v. A.V. Narasimhalu, [ 1969 (9) TMI 41 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Apex Court also observed that the administrative authorities should instead of relying on restrictive interpretations and technicalities, act in a manner consistent with the broader concept of justice - Appellant has followed the procedure as laid down in Central Excise (Removal of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacturing of excisable goods) Rules, 2001 - Only the permission from the Asst. Commissioner was received late. Since the permission was not received in time they cleared the goods on payment of duty. Had the permission been obtained in time, they would have cleared the goods without payment of duty. Since the goods are otherwise entitled for clearance without payment of duty, they are entitled for the refund – Decided against the Revenue.
|