9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 1805 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of Central Excise duty paid second time inadvertently in respect of the goods cleared under SFIS against Notification No.34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006 when the applicable duty has been debited under the said Scheme - rejection of refund on the ground that the appellant had not complied with the condition of the Notification No.34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006 while clearing the goods from the factory - HELD THAT - A plain reading of the Condition No.III of N/N. 34/2006-CE dated 14-6-2006 reveals that in respect of capital goods certificate from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner / Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or an independent Chartered Engineer be produced confirming installation and use of the said goods. In the present case initially the appellant had submitted that Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 07.06.2010 to the Department which is within the stipulated period. However the same was not accepted and a certificate from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner / Assistant Commissioner was insisted by the Department. The certificate from the jurisdictional officers has been subsequently submitted resulting into delay of more than 6 months. It is not found that the rejection of the refund claim on the ground that the submission of installation certificate was delayed is justified when the said condition allows submission of Installation certificate from a Chartered Engineer also. Thus the rejection of the refund claim on this ground is improper. Besides it is not in dispute that the goods cleared by the appellant had reached the factory premises of the consignee M/s. Diamond Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and consequently re-warehousing certificate has been issued. Conclusion - In the event of any discrepancy or non-use of the capital goods in accordance with the condition the consignee is required to discharge duty in view of Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules 2001 as well as settled in the case laws referred by the appellant. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
The primary legal issue considered in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to a refund of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.16,48,000/- that was inadvertently paid a second time on goods cleared under the Served From India Scheme (SFIS) against Notification No.34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006, when duty had already been debited under the said scheme.
Closely related to this is the question of compliance with the conditions prescribed under Notification No.34/2006-CE, particularly the requirement to produce an installation certificate issued by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or an independent Chartered Engineer within six months of clearance of capital goods. Another issue concerns the interpretation of the procedural requirements under Circular No.837/14/2006-CX dated 03.11.2006 regarding the debiting of SFIS scrips in the case of domestic procurement and the respective responsibilities of the supplier (appellant) and the consignee (scrip holder) in complying with these procedures. Finally, the appellant contested the application of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which requires reversal of 10% of the value of goods cleared under SFIS when credit has been availed on inputs used in manufacture of exempted goods, arguing that the goods cleared under SFIS cannot be treated as exempted goods. Issue-wise detailed analysis: 1. Entitlement to Refund of Central Excise Duty Paid Twice under SFIS The relevant legal framework comprises Notification No.34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006, which exempts goods cleared against a SFIS certificate from payment of Central Excise duty, subject to specified conditions. The notification allows clearance of capital goods, office equipment, and professional equipment to service providers without payment of duty, provided the SFIS certificate is produced and the goods are used as prescribed. The appellant cleared 'Reach Stacker' machines under SFIS against valid authorizations and permission from the Deputy Commissioner to clear goods without payment of duty. However, due to an inadvertent error, the appellant also paid excise duty on the same goods in their excise invoices and ER-1 returns. The appellant claimed refund of this erroneously paid duty. The authorities below rejected the refund claim primarily on the ground that the appellant failed to comply with the condition requiring production of an installation certificate from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner within six months of clearance. The appellant had submitted a Chartered Engineer's certificate within the stipulated period, but this was not accepted. The official installation certificate was submitted belatedly, resulting in rejection of refund. The Court interpreted Condition (iii) of the Notification, which explicitly permits production of either a certificate from the jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner or an independent Chartered Engineer confirming installation and use of the goods within six months or an extended period allowed by the authorities. The appellant had submitted the Chartered Engineer certificate timely, which was rejected by the Department without valid justification. The subsequent submission of the official certificate beyond six months was held to be belated. The Court reasoned that the rejection of the refund claim solely on the ground of delayed submission of the official certificate was improper, since the notification allows for an independent Chartered Engineer's certificate as an alternative. The appellant's compliance with this condition was thus established. Additionally, it was undisputed that the goods had reached the consignee's premises and a re-warehousing certificate was issued, confirming physical receipt and installation. This fact further supported the appellant's claim. The Court applied the law to the facts, concluding that the appellant had complied with the notification's conditions and was entitled to the refund of the erroneously paid duty. Competing arguments from the Department that the appellant did not comply with the notification's conditions were rejected on the basis that the notification itself allowed for alternative certificates and the appellant had fulfilled the same. 2. Compliance with Circular No.837/14/2006-CX Regarding SFIS Scrip Debiting Procedure Circular No.837/14/2006-CX dated 03.11.2006 prescribes the procedure for debiting original SFIS scrips for payment of Central Excise duty in cases of domestic procurement. It mandates that the scrip holder (consignee) must produce the original scrip before the jurisdictional Central Excise officer at the time of clearance, the officer must verify genuineness and debit the scrip, and the scrip holder must intimate Customs authorities of such debit. The appellant contended that the consignee, being the scrip holder, bore the responsibility to comply with these procedural requirements, and the appellant manufacturer had no role in this process. Further, the duty liability under the AR-3A procedure rests with the consignee, as per Rule 20(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, supported by relevant circulars and case law. The Court accepted this interpretation, noting that any discrepancy or non-compliance with the scrip debiting procedure lies with the scrip holder (consignee), not with the appellant manufacturer. The appellant's role was limited to clearing goods with due permission and issuing invoices. Thus, the appellant cannot be penalized or denied refund based on procedural lapses attributable to the consignee. 3. Applicability of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 Rule 6(3) requires reversal of 10% of the value of goods cleared under SFIS if input credit has been availed on inputs used in the manufacture of such exempted goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the appellant must reverse 10% of the value of goods cleared under SFIS on this basis. The appellant relied on a recent judgment holding that goods cleared under SFIS cannot be treated as exempted goods for the purpose of this rule, and hence, no reversal of credit is warranted. The Court, while noting the appellant's submission and reliance on precedent, did not explicitly elaborate on this issue in the impugned order but allowed the appeal with consequential relief, implying acceptance of the appellant's contention on this point. Significant holdings: "A plain reading of the Condition No.III of the said Notification reveals that in respect of capital goods, certificate from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner / Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or an independent Chartered Engineer, as the case may be, is produced confirming installation and use of the goods in the factory or premises of the holder of the said certificate, within six months from the date of clearance or within such extended period as the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, may allow." "I do not find the rejection of the refund claim on the ground that the submission of installation certificate was delayed is justified, when the said condition allows submission of Installation certificate from a Chartered Engineer also. Thus, the rejection of the refund claim on this ground is improper." "In the event of any discrepancy or non-use of the capital goods in accordance with the condition, the consignee is required to discharge duty in view of Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 as well as settled in the case laws referred by the appellant." Core principles established include:
Final determinations: The impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside. The appellant was held entitled to refund of the erroneously paid Central Excise duty. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
|
