TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FO/76994/17 - Dated:- 25-8-2017 - Satish Chandra, President And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member ( Technical ) Sri K. Chowdhury, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 08/DB/CE(A)/GHY/09 dated 10/08/2009. The period of dispute is 7th July, 1999 to February, 2003. 2. List revised. None present on behalf of the respondent assessee. 3. Notice sent by the Tribunal, presumably has been served as it has not been returned. In the absence of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent assessee, we heard Shri K. Chowdhury, Ld. Counsel for the Department (Appellant) and from the record it appears that identical issue h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso not coming out from this case law whether appellant claimed the benefit of Notification No. 33/99-C.E. in the RT-12 returns. In the case of Dhunseri Tea Estate v. CCE, Dibrugarh (supra) there is a specific mention by CESTAT, Kolkata, in Para 8 of the order No. A-229/Kol/2011, dated 27-7-2011, that appellant had filed RT-12 returns with the lower authorities wherein there was a claim for the benefit of Notification No. 33/99-C.E. It was in these circumstances that this Bench held that filing of a separate statements under clause 2(a) of Notification No. 33/99-C.E. should be considered a procedural requirement only. Further, this Bench in view of the relied upon case laws of the assessees has never held that no clause of Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... day of December, 1997; (b) Industrial units existing before the 24th day of December, 1997 but which have undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than twenty five per cent on or after the 24th day of December, 1997. 8.2 It has been observed by the first appellate authority in Para 5 of the Order-in-Appeal No. 72/CE (A)/GHY/07, dated 9-10-2007 that C.B.E. C. Vide Letter No. 354/8/98-TRU (Part-II), dated 6-10-1999 has clarified that provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable to refunds under Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999. Therefore, both the special counsels appearing on behalf of the Revenue were making a futile attempt by relying upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sts a duty on the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner (AC/DC) to verify such statement and refund the amount of duty paid from account covered during the month by the 15th of next month. Clause 2(a) of this exemption notification cannot be read 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/asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed under this notification. Accordingly, on cumulative reading of various provisions of Notification No. 33/99-C.E., we are of the considered opinion that refund claims, filed after more than 5 to 6 years of such duty payment, are clearly time-barred. 9. It has also been argued by the Revenue that in view of the Apex Court s decision in the case of Meridian Industries Ltd. v. CCE [2015 (325) E.L.T. 417 (S.C.)] a strict interpretation of an exemption notification should be made and in case of any confusion, the benefit of doubt should be given to the Revenue. Respondents/assessees on the other hand, have relied upon the Apex Court s case law CCE, Surat v. Favourite Industries [2012 (278) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.)] to argue that a benefi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rict 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-Cus. is a mandatory condition that an assessee should claim the refund of duty by 7th of the next month. This condition cannot be interpreted liberally as laid down by the Apex Court. However, accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
