|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 44 Records
-
2021 (5) TMI 671
Principles of Natural Justice - non-speaking order - non-payment of demand - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that impugned demand notice reveals that the amount claimed pertains to the year 1997. However, the notice was issued in July 2004, after a lapse of about 7 years. Further, the order impugned is non-speaking and the details regarding the enquiry as well as the findings are not made available in the impugned order. Thus, the reason for arriving such a conclusion has not been elaborated in the impugned order. Such non-speaking orders, which was passed after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner cannot be appreciated by this Court.
This being the Principles of Natural Justice to be complied with by the competent authority, more specifically, the Statutory authorities, this Court is of an opinion that the impugned order, which is non-speaking, cannot be sustained in the eye of law - this Court is inclined to consider the writ petition - Petition allowed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 669
Refund of Excise Duty - Area based exemption - Northeast Industrial Policy - N/N. 20/2008-Central Excise dated 27.03.2008 - HELD THAT:- As the Notification dated 27.03.2008 provides for a legal right to the assessee to claim for a special rate to be fixed in the event of there being any add-ons to the goods manufactured, without an appropriate decision being taken on such claim for special rate, it would be inappropriate for the department to proceed against the petitioners as per the rates provided in the Notification dated 27.03.2008.
This petition stands disposed of by directing the Principal Commissioner of GST Dibrugarh to consider the aforesaid application of the petitioner dated 04.09.2012 claiming for a special rate to be fixed on the basis of the add-ons made to the goods manufactured. After arriving at the special rate, if any as per the order to be passed by the Principal Commissioner, GST further process against the petitioner as per law may be initiated.
-
2021 (5) TMI 665
100% EOU - DTA sales limit - concessional duties of Central excise - Allegation is that goods cleared in DTA, in excess of the permitted 90% of the FOB value of the exports, in contravention of Para 6.8[a] of the Foreign Trade Policy and condition [2] of the notification number 23/2003-CE dated 31-03-2003 - appellants have based their submissions mainly contending that the items manufactured, exported and cleared in DTA by them are similar; the department has misread the provisions of Policy in finding that DTA sales limit of 90% would apply to each product separately, whereas the word used is products.
HELD THAT:- The appellants have based their submissions mainly contending that the items manufactured, exported and cleared in DTA by them are similar; the department has misread the provisions of Policy in finding that DTA sales limit of 90% would apply to each product separately, whereas the word used is products.
EOUs are given a facility to clear the goods in DTA, as a reward for the exports made by them subject to the fulfilment of positive NFE. It may so happen that EOU unit manufacturing more than one product may not be able to export all the products in the same proportion; the overseas market may not have demand for all the products manufactured by them. Understandably, EOU cannot be expected to throw away or destroy the product or sell in DTA at a higher rate of duty resulting in financial loss - as the EOU scheme is based on value of clearances, once export obligation is fulfilled, the manufacturer cannot be constrained to clear particular products in DTA in proportion to the export of the specific product - the goods cleared in DTA are to be held to be similar to those exported and that the 90% entitlement should be seen from the value of exported specific products and not a single product.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Development Commissioner has given permission or has been regularly intimated about the DTA clearances; similar intimations and returns have also been submitted to the jurisdiction Custom/CE authorities. The clearances in DTA were going on from 2009 onwards. CERA audit of the unit has taken place and note was issued on 21.05.2013 - As the appellants were regularly submitting intimations to the Development Commissioner and Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, it is not open to the department to invoke the extended period of limitation. Revenue sought to enforce the conditions of B-17 Bond. However, the Bond is given in respect of imports or duty free DTA procurements by the appellants. It would no way cover the duty liability if any on the DTA clearances. It is not the case of the department that the demand is of duty of Customs or duty of excise foregone on the raw material imported/procured by the appellants.
It can be seen that in the instant case, DTA clearances of Bearing Housing Machined were 280035% of the FOB value. Even then Tribunal held that the clearances are in order in view of the provisions of FTP. In the instant case during the period 2009-10 to 2013-14 (up to December 2013), exports of twisted yarn were ₹ 66, 68,303/- and DTA clearances were of value ₹ 470, 37, 94,080/- thus DTA clearances were 70,205% of the same - the issue doesn’t pertain to interpretation of a Notification but interpretation of Provisions of the Policy.
In the instant case there is no allegation that export obligation has not been fulfilled and positive NFE was not achieved. A close look at the scheme of the EOU, gives an understanding that the scheme places on reliance of the value of exports and not the quantities. Therefore, positive NFE being achieved, the appellants are within their rights to avail the facility of DTA clearance in terms of Para 6.8 of FTP.
Appeal allowed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 606
CENVAT Credit - capital goods - lead and articles thereof, viz, lead ingot, lead dross and lead sheet classifiable under chapter 78 - period April 2005 to January 2010 - HELD THAT:- The goods in question have been used in the repair and maintenance which is not in dispute and the same has been duly recorded by the Ld. Commissioner in para 5.4 of the impugned order in page no. 14. After taking note of the diagram and photographs submitted by the appellant in the course of adjudication, the Ld. Commissioner has observed that goods in question have been used to channelize sulphuric acid in the manufacturing process. The process helps restore coating inside the steel channels forming part of the machines to keep the machine in running condition. In essence, the goods on which credit has been denied have been used in the factory for repair and maintenance purpose which facts are not in dispute.
The appellant is legally eligible for credit and hence, the instant demand cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (5) TMI 605
Abatement of duty - closure of the production activity at the unit was not for a continuous period exceeding 15 days - officer of the department has failed to mention about the machine which was made un-operational why could not be removed for certain reasons - due to heaviness of machine, it cannot be removed when it become unoperational - HELD THAT:- In terms of sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the said Rules, the machines which the manufacturer does not intend to operate would be uninstalled and sealed by the Superintendent of Central Excise and removed from the factory premises under his physical supervision. For the period during which the machine is thus rendered incapacitated, the concerned manufacturer would be spared the burden of excise duty since the entire levy is based on installed production capacity and not on actual manufacture or clearance of goods - In case of the present assessee, under an order dated 19th October 2015, the Inspector of Central Excise recorded that the machine was uninstalled and sealed on the said date under his supervision. However, since the machine was heavy and removal would require large number of skilled labourers and the tools which were not available, the machine was sealed in such a manner that it cannot be operated. As noted, this order was found sufficient by the Commissioner(Appeals) to enable the assessee to claim abatement of duty. It appears that the department has also accepted this order of the Commissioner(Appeals).
However, for the remaining period, the claim of the assessee is rejected on the ground that the sealing order did not specify that it was sealed in such a manner that the machinery cannot be operated - the proviso to sub-rule (5) envisages that in case it is not feasible to remove such machine out of the factory premises, it shall be uninstalled and sealed by the Superintendent of Central Excise in such a manner that it cannot be operated. The fact that the machine is too heavy to be removed was recorded by the Superintendent of Central Excise in his order dated 19th October, 2015. Being the same machine, the situation for a different period, would not change.
In absence of any allegations by the department and any material on record suggesting that despite sealing the assessee operated the machine, it would not be permissible to withhold the abatement of duty only on the ground that the Superintendent of Central Excise did not draw proper proceedings and did not elaborately record that the sealing was done in such a manner that the machine could not be operated.
The question of law is answered in favour of the assessee.
-
2021 (5) TMI 597
Maintainability of petition - Compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - To Consider the amount deposited during investigation as pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- Irrespective of the fact whether the issues is covered on merits or not and covered by an order of the Tribunal for the previous period, the petitioner is required to pre-deposit 7.5% of the disputed tax and/or penalty or both together at the stage of the first appeal before the second respondent Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and another sum of 2.5% totalling to 10% at the stage of Appeal before the first respondent Tribunal. This statutory minimum cannot be waived.
The idea of rationalizing this amount to a statutory minimum is to spur final hearing of the appeal by the Tribunals and Commissioner (Appeals). Further, the Registry of the first respondent is really not concerned with the merits of the case and therefore, cannot waive the amount - it is not possible under the scheme of the amendment to the Act for the petitioner to expect the Registry of the first respondent Tribunal to adjudicate the same. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned communication on the score has to fail.
Therefore, petitioner may obtain a certificate from the jurisdictional officer or Supt of Central Excise to the effect that the amount of ₹ 2.32 Crores paid by the petitioner has not been adjusted against any of the duty liability or refunded back to the petitioner - If such certificate is obtained, such certificate shall be produced before the Registry of the first respondent Tribunal - Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (5) TMI 558
Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - validity of circular dated 22.08.2019 and earlier circular dated 17.08.2011 - HELD THAT:- The petition preferred by the Department was dismissed in the light of the monetary limit fixed by the circular under reference in the aforesaid case. Against the judgment of the Division Bench, a special leave to appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER VERSUS PARTH PHARMACHEM INDUSTRIES [2017 (4) TMI 84 - SC ORDER] and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the special leave to appeal by an order dated 17.10.2016. Therefore, taking into account the aforesaid judgment, the circular dated 22.08.2019, read with circular dated 17.08.2011, as the case does not fall under the exceptional case i.e., Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 458
Recovery of CENVAT Credit - outward transportation of final goods from the factory of the appellant to the customer’s premises - Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in not considering the Circular bearing No.1065/4/2018-CD, dated 08.6.2018? - HELD THAT:- The aspect of non-consideration of the impact of the Circular, dated 08.6.2018, is fatal to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. In the considered opinion of this Court, the matter requires reconsideration by the Appellate Tribunal after taking into account, the impact and effect of Circular bearing No.1065/4/2018-CD, dated 08.06.2018, having regard to the contents of the paragraphs Nos.3 and 4 of the said circular as indicated in the preceding paragraphs.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2021 (5) TMI 442
CENVAT Credit - Inputs or not - by-product - wash oil, sulphuric acid, caustic soda, alum, hydrochloric acid, ion exchanger - generation of ammonium sulphate and CO gas - cenvat credit on common inputs which were used in or in relation to, either directly or indirectly in the manufacture and clearance of dutiable final products as well as exempted final products - ammonium sulphate and CO gas - Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
Whether wash oil, sulphuric acid, caustic soda, alum, hydrochloric acid, ion exchanger are inputs in or in relation to generation of ammonium sulphate and CO gas? - HELD THAT:- In the case of AARTI DRUGS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III [2001 (4) TMI 146 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in COMMISSIONER VERSUS AARTI DRUGS LTD. [2009 (2) TMI 800 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and further affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER VERSUS AARTI DRUGS LTD. [2015 (10) TMI 554 - SC ORDER], a Division Bench of the Tribunal has held that ammonium sulphate obtained from mother liquor is a by-product and the provisions of Rule 57CC(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, equivalent to Rules 6(2) and 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, is inapplicable and cenvat credit of inputs contained in such by-product was permissible.
The facts and the issues contained the decisions of the Apex Court and the Tribunal are, on perusal of the impugned orders, the adjudication orders and the documents on record of the present proceedings are found to be the same and hence the said decisions are fully applicable to the instant cases - credit allowed.
Whether demand in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules is appropriate as the appellant availed cenvat credit on common inputs which were used in or in relation to, either directly or indirectly in the manufacture and clearance of dutiable final products as well as exempted final products, namely ammonium sulphate and CO gas, where the appellant had exercised option to follow Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules in terms of Rule 6(3A) and whether non-acceptance thereof by the Department was correct? - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute nor denial in either the show cause notices or in the adjudication orders that the appellant had exercised option in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Once this fact, established from the materials on record, is not disputed, there can be no demand in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - The finding that the appellant was required to pay much higher amount in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules other than that actual reversed is also without any merit. On plain reading of Rules 6(3) and (3A) it is seen that nowhere it is mentioned that an assessee should pay any amount higher than that of the actual amount calculated under the procedure prescribed under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The finding that the reversal of credit attributable to the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted products was insufficient in accordance to the demanded amount as calculated in the show cause notices is misconceived. The relevant provisions and procedure nowhere requires that an assessee should pay an amount higher than that of the actual amount calculated under the procedure prescribed under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (5) TMI 441
CENVAT Credit - common inputs and input services attributable to exempted goods and goods having nil rate of duty - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Telengana High Court, in M/S TIARA ADVERTISING VERSUS UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE [2019 (10) TMI 27 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], has held that in the event the assessee is found to have availed Cenvat credit wrongly, Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules empowers the Authority to recover such credit which had been taken or utilized wrongly, along with interest and that the statutory scheme does not vest the Revenue authorities with the power of choice under, inter alia, Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. This decision has been followed by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/S TATA STEEL LTD. VERSUS CCEX. & S. TAX, JAMSHEDPUR [2020 (7) TMI 698 - CESTAT KOLKATA]. It has been held therein that the demand confirmed under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules by the Adjudicating Authority/Commissioner (Appeals) by choosing such option in the show cause notice cannot be sustained.
In the instant case also it is an undisputed fact that the appellant had reversed the entire amount of Cenvat credit as required under Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A)(c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (5) TMI 415
Clandestine removal - whether the demand is based on assumptions and presumptions without any positive evidence? - penalty - HELD THAT:- There are no observation to justify upholding the duty demand, as has been claimed to have made by the learned Commissioner. Since a detailed observation has been made in the impugned order to hold that the charge of clandestine manufacture and clearance is not supported by any positive evidence and is merely based on assumption and presumption, which has not been rebutted, there are no reason to uphold the duty demand.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (5) TMI 383
Grant of interest on delayed refund - appeal dismissed as being time barred - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the claim of interest was not whispered in the order dt. 11.04.2018 of the adjudicating authority, against which the appellant moved an application for payment of interest on 07.05.2019 and it was answered on 29.08.2019; therefore, the intimation/letter dated 29.08.2019 is an appealable order before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Against the said order, the appellant has filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 31.10.2019 which is well within the time limit prescribed under the Act.
The appeal filed by the appellant before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is in time. Therefore, the impugned order qua holding that the appeal is time barred is set aside - Matter remanded back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merit following judicial pronouncements on the issue - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2021 (5) TMI 366
Input service distributor (ISD) - Void ab initio distributed credit - office or establishment of the said manufacturer or not - satisfaction of provisions of Rule 2(m) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The ILTD belongs to the assessee viz., ITC and is an integral division of the assessee. The aforesaid Division is not a separate legal entity and controls the supply chain of un-manufactured tobacco to the factories. The Company is registered as Input Service Distributor under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Service Tax Rules, 1994 for its Indian Leaf Tobacco Division in Guntur. The aforesaid registration enables distribution of service tax paid input credits to manufacturing activities carried on in the factories.
A division bench of this court in COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-I VERSUS ECOF INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. [2011 (2) TMI 1130 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that there are only two limitations imposed under Rule 7 of the Rules, for distribution of credit by a Input Service Distributor. Firstly, it cannot exceed the amount of service tax paid and secondly, the credit of service tax attributable to service used shall not be distributed in a unit exclusively engaged in the manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services. The manufacturer is therefore, required to register himself as Input Service Distributor and thereafter, is entitled to distribution of credit of such input in the manner prescribed under the law - No submission has been made before us as to how the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the case of the assessee.
Since, the revenue has accepted the entitlement of the assessee to avail off the input credit for the assessment periods viz., November 2010 to July 2011 and for a period from August 2011 to December 2011, the revenue cannot be permitted to challenge its correctness.
The substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue and in favor of the assessee.
-
2021 (5) TMI 331
Maintainability of appeal - availability of efficacious alternative remedy of appeal - Classification of goods - Herbal Sherbat Granules - whether classified under subheading No. 2101 2090? - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, the High Court may pass an order of remand in the event of non-consideration of certain vital issues raised by the parties concerned. However, if an efficacious Appellate Remedy is available before the Appellate Tribunal, then the High Court need not go into those facts unnecessarily and the institutional respects are to be maintained and the statutory appeals are to be exhausted in all circumstances. The Tribunal has got powers to adjudicate all the factual as well as the legal grounds raised by the respective parties. More so, the Tribunal is empowered to consider the merits with reference to the documents as well as the evidences. Such an exercise cannot be done by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order impugned is passed by the 1st respondent, who is the original authority in the present case. Thus, the petitioner has to avail the further opportunity of appeal for effective adjudication of the issues with reference to the original documents and evidences, which all are relied on by the parties concerned.
Thus, this Court is of the opinion that exhausting of an appeal remedy under the Customs Act is of paramount importance for effective adjudication of the issues with reference to the original documents and evidences produced by the respective parties to the lis.
This Court has no hesitation in arriving a conclusion that the petitioners are bound to exhaust the Appellate Remedy as contemplated under Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal in a prescribed form and by complying with the provisions of the Act - Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 316
Determination of Annual Production capacity - reduced annual production capacity on the basis of reduction of parameters in their mills - Rule 5 of Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 - HELD THAT:- On the plain reading of the Rule 5 of Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, it is clear that even if the parameter is changed the APC should be fixed based on the annual production of the year 1996-1997. However, the vires of Rule 5 is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S. BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANOTHER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2017 (3) TMI 1357 - SUPREME COURT]. Therefore, in the interest of justice, as regard the issue of determination of APC and demand of duty it should be decided only after the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, only for the issue of demand of duty, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority.
Demand of interest on the duty liability - HELD THAT:- It is found that Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of M/S. SHREE BHAGWATI STEEL ROLLING MILLS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ANOTHER [2015 (11) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT] has clearly held that the levy of interest cannot be made under rule 96ZO, 96ZP, 96ZQ of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1994 which provided for compounded levy scheme itself does not stipulate levy of interest - Interest set aside.
Appeal allowed in part..
-
2021 (5) TMI 288
Recovery of excess cash refund - submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice is devoid of any merit, inasmuch as, no such recovery can be made in exercise of powers under Section 11A of the Act as under the said provision only an amount which has been erroneously refunded can be refunded - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the petitioner that the show cause notice has been issued by an authority which is not competent under law to issue the same. In such a situation, we decline to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction and dismiss the petition with liberty to the petitioner to show cause pursuant to the impugned show cause notice whereupon necessary action in accordance with law would be taken.
It is made clear that it will be open for the petitioner to take up all legal pleas available to him in law in response to the show cause notice and the dismissal of this petition would not come in his way - petition dismissed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 281
Refund of CENVAT Credit - amount was paid under protest - denial of refund on the ground of time limitation - Applicability of time limit prescribed for one year - HELD THAT:- The said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of HUTCHISOM MAX TELECOM PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI [2004 (1) TMI 114 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] where on identical issue, it was held that the refund of the duty paid by the Appellants cannot be denied to them on the ground of claim being time barred.
Further in the case of M/S. TAMILNADU EX-SERVICEMEN’S CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. AND CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2019 (12) TMI 185 - CESTAT CHENNAI] it was held that even when Service Tax was paid under mistake of law, the period of limitation cannot be invoked to deny the refund.
Thus, the contesting the reversal of cenvat credit by the appellant shall amounts to reversal under protest as per the various judicial decisions discussed - the refund claim filed by the appellant is not barred by limitation prescribed under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (5) TMI 191
SVLDRS - seeking to issue Form SVLRDS 3 for the amount stated - seeking an opportunity to present its case by providing a personal hearing - HELD THAT:- The impugned order which is sketchy in nature and does not assign adequate reasons, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent department to reconsider the case of the petitioner by taking into account the judgement of Gujarat High Court in the case of MESSRS SYNPOL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2020 (9) TMI 257 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that declaration filed by the petitioners and other similarly situated persons are required to be considered by the designated committee without payment of redemption fine by the declarant.
A fresh decision be taken by the department expeditiously - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2021 (5) TMI 175
CENVAT Credit - input services - Air Travel Agent Service /Rail Travel Agent Service - Real Estate Agent Service - denial on the ground that these services have no direct or indirect relation to the manufacturing activity of the appellant - HELD THAT:- The sample invoices were produced before the adjudicating authority and reason for denial of cenvat credit is that the services in question have no direct or indirect relation to the manufacturing activity of the appellant. It is not a case where the appellant has not provided the sample invoices of the services on which they have taken cenvat credit. In these circumstances, the services in question are having direct relation with the manufacturing activity of the appellant.
CENVAT Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (5) TMI 127
Area based exemption - benefits under the Northeast Industrial Policy - N/N. 20/2008-Central Excise dated 27.03.2008 - HELD THAT:- This petition is instituted on the grievance that the Notification dated 27.03.2008 having been restored as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, an application dated 01.04.2021 under Clause 3(1) of the Notification No.20/2008-Central Excise dated 27.03.2008 was submitted by the petitioner claiming for a special rate, but the same has not been given its consideration and without giving a due consideration to the claim for special rate made by the petitioners, the respondents now intend to make recovery on the premises that the refund of excise duty would be as per the rates provided in the Notification dated 27.03.2008. As the Notification dated 27.03.2008 provides for a legal right to the assessee to claim for a special rate to be fixed in the event of there being any add-ons to the goods manufactured, without an appropriate decision being taken on such claim for special rate, it would be inappropriate for the department to proceed against the petitioners as per the rates provided in the Notification dated 27.03.2008.
This petition stands disposed of by directing the Principal Commissioner of GST Guwahati to consider the aforesaid application of the petitioner dated 01.04.2021 claiming for a special rate to be fixed on the basis of the add-ons made to the goods manufactured.
|
