Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2022 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1041 - HC - Central ExciseArea Bases Exemption - fixation of special rate representing the actual value addition - Recovery of refund / reversal of credit received by the petitioner as per the interim order - Later Hon'ble SC has upheld the validity of withdrawal of area based exemption - principles of promissory estoppel - effect of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of V.V. F. Ltd. [2020 (4) TMI 669 - SUPREME COURT] and its effect of the said judgment on the amendment made by the Notification No. 38/2008-CE dated 10/6/2008 - HELD THAT:- In the instant judgment, this Court had explained the scope and ambit of Paragraph 3(1) as was inserted by the Notification No. 38/2008-CE. In terms with the said provision, the manufacturer shall have the option not to avail the rates specified in the table and apply to the Commissioner of Central Excise or the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the manufacturing unit of the manufacturer for fixation of a special rate representing the actual value addition in respect to any goods, manufactured and cleared under the said Notification, if the manufacturer finds that the actual value addition in the production or manufacture of the goods is at least 115% of the rates specified in the table and for that purpose, the manufacturer may make an application in writing to the Commissioner of Central Excise or the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, as the case may be, not later than 30th day of September in a given financial year for determination of such special rate, stating all relevant facts including the proportion in which the material or components are used in the production or manufacture of goods. It is relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in V.V.F. Ltd. In Paragraph No. 24, the Supreme Court held that the impugned Notifications therein including the Notification No. 20/2008-CE and 38/2008-CE were clarificatory in nature and it can be defined as an Act to remove doubts. It is in that perspective, the Supreme Court observed that the subsequent Notification/industrial policies cannot be said to have taken away the benefits which were accrued/granted under the earlier Notifications. In Paragraph 24.1 to 24.1.4 the Supreme Court on the basis of the materials on record had observed the misuse of the earllier Notifications granting exemption. Taking into consideration that the Petitioner’s applications were filed on 18/3/2021 for fixation of the special rate for value addition, this Court deems it appropriate and accordingly directs the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Dibrugarh, the Respondent No. 2 herein to decide the applications of the Petitioner dated 18/3/2021 on its own merit as regards the claim for fixation of the special rate to actual value addition to the manufactured goods of the given financial years - Petition allowed.
|