9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en passed by the Lower Appellate Authority in respect of 27 assessees, 14 of which have filed these 15 appeals. The ld. Advocates appearing for the Appellants state that the impugned order has been passed without giving any notice to the Appellants and without granting them any personal hearing. We find from the impugned order that nowhere in the order the Lower Appellate Authority has recorded regarding any issue of notice or grant of hearing to the Appellants. He has merely stated the facts regarding retrospective amendment to Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 through Section 153 of the Finance Act, 2003 and also the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court dated 21.09.2006 upholding the Constitutional validity of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the amount paid in cash after utilizing the credit. Accordingly, he states that even applying the retrospectively amended law, nothing is required to be paid by the appellants after taking into account the factual position regarding payment of duty by first utilizing the credit in their case. 4. We have heard the Ld. JDR who supports the impugned order on the basis of retrospective amendment as well as the cited decision of the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court. We are of the view that in the absence of Stay on the said decision of the Hob'ble High Court of Guwahati or contrary decision from any higher judicial forum, the law laid down by the said decision has to be followed. However, the amended law effectively requires that the credit availe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. We find that the appellant is a manufacture of Tea including Tea Waste under Chapter Heading 0902.00 of Central Excise Tariff and had availed of the area based exemption granted from 08.07.1999 vide exemption notification No. 33/99-C-E dated 08.07.1999 which was amended from time to time. 5.1 That clause 145(1) of the Finance Bill 2003 which has been enacted on 14th May 2003 amended the Notification No.33/99-CE dated 8.7.99 issued under Section %A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of special importance) Act, 1957 and sub-section (3) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pursuant to such order Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati the Revenue had considered all the Appeal filed by various manufacturing units together and had passed a blanket order upholding the demand raised pursuant to clause 145(I) of the Finance Bill 2003. 9. That blanket order was challenged before the CESTAT by all the manufacturing unit including your Appellant. By order dated 31.05.2007 the Hon'ble CESTAT allowed the Appeals on remand and directed that each case should be dealt with individually. Thus the Appellate Authority was to decide whether CENVAT Credit used in imputes for the good manufactured and removed from 08.07.1999 to 20.12.2002 has been recovered or not. 10. It is significant tht the Finance Bill in question related to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Refund admissible after Retrospective amendment (4-6) : Rs. 19,92,539.00 8. Amount to be recovered (5-7) : Rs. 3,39,441.00 The Appellant contends that:- 1. The amount of duties paid by making debit to PLA Rs.23,31,980.00 2. Add the Duty paid by utilization of CENVAT Credit Rs.4,39,154.00 Rs.27,71,134.00 3. Less Cenvat Credit utilized Rs. 4,39,154.00 Rs.23,31,980.00 4. Refund Sanctioned Rs. 23,31,980.00 5. Refund Due NIL 12. The Appellant therefore submits that the order in Appeal be set aside since the said order makes a demand that is beyond the scope of Clause 145(1) of the Finance Bill 2003. The Revenue ventured to raise a demand beyond 22.12.2002 that must be paid within 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
