TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption under Notification No.33/99 dated 8/7/1999 pertaining to the extension of the installation capacity. The appellant has paid the duty and filed the refund claim which was allowed by the adjudicating authority. Being aggrieved, the Department has filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) who has disallowed the claim of refund for the reason that refund claim was availed after a period of six years from the date from which respondent became eligible.Being aggrieved, the assessee appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee appellant even in the revised list. No adjournment application is available on record. Notice sent by the Registry has been served properly. 4. In the absence of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, we heard Shri K. Chowdhury, Ld. Counsel for the Department and perused the materials on record. From the record it appears that the identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Vernerpur Tea Estate Vs. Commr. of Central Excise Service Tax, Shillong reported in 2016 (336) E.L.T. 549 (Tri-Kolkata) where it was observed that : 8. Heard both sides to each appeal and perused the case records. The iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be by the 7th of the next month in which the duty has been paid from the account current. (b) The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, after such verification, as may be deemed necessary, shall refund the amount of duty paid from the account current during the month under consideration to the manufacturer by the 15th of the next month. (c) If there is likely to be any delay in the verification. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall refund the amount on provisional basis by the 15th of the next month to the month under consideration and thereafter may adjust the amount of refund by such amount as may be necessary in the subsequent refunds admissible to the manufacturer. 3. The exemption contained in this notification shall apply only to the following kind of units, namely :- (a) New industrial units which have commenced their commercial production on or after the 24th day of December, 1997; (b) Industrial units existing before the 24th day of December, 1997 but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in isolation. Statement under Clause 2(a) (whether specifically filed under exemption Notification No. 33/99-C.E. or in the form of RT-12 return) should have a claim for refund which shall be sanctioned by AC/DC by the 15th of next month. AC/DC is further bound to allow such refund provisionally under Clause 2(C) proviso of exemption notification if verification of the statement is likely to be delayed. It is observed that in the present proceedings RT-12 returns filed by the respondents/assessees were not having any claim under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. as was the fact in the case of Dhunseri Tea Estate v. CCE, Dibrugarh (supra). In view of the above observations RT-12 returns of the respondents/assessees cannot be considered as appropriate statements under Clause 2(a) of the Notification No. 33/99-C.E. It is not the case of the respondents/assessees that their substantial expansion application was pending with the department and their refund claims filed were delayed due to non-approval of expansions by the Revenue, which could have been a reasonable cause for delay in filing refund claims/statements. There is no confusion in the provisions contained in Clause 3(b) of the exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial exemptions having their purpose as encouragement or promotion of certain activities should be liberally interpreted. This composite rule is not stated in any particular judgment in so many words. In fact, majority of judgments emphasize that exemptions are to be strictly interpreted while some of them insist that exemptions in fiscal statutes are to be liberally interpreted giving an apparent impression that they are contradictory to each other. But this is only apparent. A close scrutiny will reveal that there is no real contradiction amongst the judgments at all. The synthesis of the views is quite clearly that the general rule is strict interpretation while special rule in the case of beneficial and promotional exemption is liberal interpretation. The two go very well with each other because they relate to two different sets of circumstances. 9.1 The opening few lines of Para 16 of the case law CC (P), Mumbai v. M/s. Ambalal Co., reproduced above, lays down that if any condition of a notification is not fulfilled the party is not entitled to the benefit of that notification. In the present case the statement under Clause 2(a) of the exemption Notification No. 33/99 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
