9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium conductors covered under Chapter 76 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Under Notification No. 108/95C.E., dated 28th August, 1995, the goods supplied inter alia to projects financed by the United Nations or an international organization approved by the Government of India, were exempted. One of the conditions of the notification was the issuance of a certificate by the Project Implementing Authority, countersigned by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary, Finance of the concerned State Government or the Union Territory. 3. Some time in March, 2000, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (APTRANSCO) placed an order with the petitioners for supply of con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioners filed a settlement application before the Settlement Commission. On 20th June 2007, the petitioners paid ₹ 6,31,15,178/ to the department. The total payment by the petitioners by 20th June 2007 towards duty, therefore aggregated to ₹ 6,81,15,178/. On 24th July 2007, the Settlement Commission admitted the petitioners' application. 7. On 17th September 2007, the petitioners paid ₹ 81,78,730/ to the department thereby making a total payment of ₹ 7,62,93,908/, i.e. the full duty demanded in the show cause notice. 8. On 28th September 2007, a final order was passed by the Settlement Commission, inter alia directing the petitioners to pay interest on the admitted duty amount @ 13% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to them under the deemed export provision, the gain or loss to the exchequer of the Government and consequential so-called financial accommodation becomes more 'notional' than 'real' in its character. It is submitted that in view thereof, there would be no revenue implication. The petitioners in support of this contention have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune v. Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2007 (213) E.L.T. 490 (S.C.) and the decision in the case of the Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex. v. Textile Corporation Marathwada Ltd., reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.). 11. Per Contra : Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs were entitled to immediate refund of duty so deposited on the grounds of deemed export benefits, the revenue would have at least earned an interest on the duty so deposited until receipt of an application seeking refund was received from the petitioners and payment of the said refund was made. Mr. Jetly has, therefore, submitted that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioners are of no assistance to them. 13. Conclusion : The relevant portion of the order passed by the Settlement Commission dated 28th September, 2007 is reproduced as under : 8. "We have gone through the records of the case and the submissions made by the applicant and the Revenue. We note that the applicant has made full ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granting full immunity from penalty and grants the same to the applicant and the co-applicant. Prosecution : We also grant immunity to the applicant and the co-applicants from prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules as applicable." 14. The above order makes it clear that the Settlement Commission have appreciated the fact that the petitioners have not intentionally evaded the payment of duty and that the default on their part can be attributable to their erroneous belief that they were actually entitled to the exemption in question. Even according to Mr. Jetly, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, the petitioners were entitled to immediate refund of duty deposited by them on the ground of deem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
