TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d refund of duty paid stands conclusively proved. The appellant having been once found to be eligible for exemptions and refund of duty paid, denial of benefit of exemptions and refund on the ground of delay, in our considered opinion, will cause grave injustice which cannot be permitted. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that non-following of procedural requirement cannot deny the substantive benefit, otherwise available to the assessee. Decided in favor of appellant - appeal allowed with cost of ₹ 3000/-. - C. Ex. App. Nos. 8 & 9-10 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2018 - Ajit Singh, C.J. and Manojit Bhuyan, J. Dr. A.K. Saraf, SC assisted by S/Shri Z. Islam, S.K. Kejriwal, P. Das, Counsels and A. Goyal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri B. Sarma, SSC, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT [Judgment and Order per : Ajit Singh, C.J.]. - This common judgment shall decide C. Ex. Appeal Nos. 8, 9 and 10, all of 2016, because they are admitted on the same substantial questions of law and were heard together. The substantial questions of law are as under :- (1) Whether the order dated 29-2-2016 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egion, the said Region was made tax free for a period of 10 years giving incentives to those who wanted to establish Industries in the Region. Pursuant thereto, Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999 was issued granting all exemptions contained therein to New Industrial Units which commenced their commercial production on or after 24-12-1997 and Industrial Units existing before 24-12-1997 but had undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than 25% on or after 24-12-1997. The Notification also stated the manner in which the exemptions contained therein shall be given effect to. 4. The appellant after claiming that all the three Industrial Units had undertaken substantial expansion to the extent of more than 25% submitted returns in the form RT-12 for the period from July, 1999 to March, 2003 evidencing the duty paid. But the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise did not refund the amount of duty paid as per Notification. The appellant therefore submitted applications on 25-6-2005 and 26-7-2005 claiming the refund of the amount of duty paid. Statements of duty paid for the three Units amounted to ₹ 56,83,856/-; ₹ 39,33 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant fulfilled the condition of Notification entitling it for refund and allowed the appeals by a common impugned order dated 29-2-2016. According to the Tribunal, statement of duty paid made in RT-12 returns in the absence of specific claim for refund of duty does not fulfil the condition of Notification. The Tribunal has also held that the Revenue cannot be expected to grant suo motu refund under the Notification where no such claim is made by 7th of next month either in the specific statement under the exemption Notification or in RT-12 return filed. The Tribunal, lastly, held that since the refund claim was made after 5-6 years, the same was time barred. It is in this backdrop, the appellant has filed the present appeals. 9. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that statement of duty paid submitted in the RT-12 returns by the 7th of next month in which the duty was paid from the account current was substantial compliance and therefore the Assistant Commissioner ought to have refunded the amount of duty paid by the 15th of next month or if there was any doubt, he should have refunded the amount on provisional basis. It has also been argued that in any case, the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were fulfilled, the appellant was entitled to refund of the amount of duty paid. As seen above, the appellant has fully established before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the three industrial units had undertaken increase by more than 45.80%, 57% and 27.56% before 24-12-1997. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming this position was not questioned by the Revenue in appeals filed before the Tribunal. The eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of exemptions and refund of duty paid stands conclusively proved. Clause 2(a) of the Notification only says that the manufacturer shall submit a statement of the duty paid by 7th of next month in which the duty has been paid from the account current. The Notification nowhere mandates the manufacturer to submit a separate claim for refund of duty paid. The appellant has admittedly been submitting statements of the duty paid from account current in RT-12 returns within time with all details before the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant having been once found to be eligible for exemptions and refund of duty paid, denial of benefit of exemptions and refund on the ground of delay, in our considered opinion, will cause grave i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
