TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002 has clarified that the refund paid under the area based exemption notification, is not the result of any excess payment of duty attracting Section 11B of the Act, but is a way of operation of the benefit of area based exemption. The appellant cannot be defaulted for making payment of duty on aluminium dross, especially since the appellant has been availing benefit of the same Notification for a long time and has been receiving periodical refunds - the appellant was not required to pay duty on aluminium dross in the light of the pronouncement of law by the Apex Court. But keeping in view the purpose of Notification, it can be inferred that once duty is paid, the refund cannot be denied to them. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Commissioner sanctioned and paid such refunds. Subsequently, show-cause notices were issued proposing to recover such amounts totally amounting to ₹ 4,95,473/- under the provisions of Section 11A as erroneous refund. The ground cited in the notices was that Aluminium dross has been held to be in the nature of waste and rubbish and could not be said to be a product of manufacture exigible to excise duty. It was viewed by Revenue that since no duty was payable at the time of clearance of aluminium dross, no refund will also be payable in terms of area based exemption notification. The original authority vide his order dated 13.02.2006, ordered for recovery of the refunded amount. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) uphel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant that the notice under Section 11A cannot be issued for recovery of erroneous refund without reviewing of the refund order under Section 35E. To this effect, he relied on the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Asian Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay : 2002 (142) ELT 522 (S.C.) (ii) Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Bhopal : 2011 (271) ELT 164 (S.C.). 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. The appellant s unit is situated in the State of Meghalaya, which is covered within the area based exemption Notification No.32/99-CE (supra). For the goods which are manufactured in the unit situated in such area, excise duty is required to be paid and the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. After perusal of various case laws cited by both sides, it is noticed that the decisions are cited for against such proposition. However, we note that the dispute in the present case can be decided by considering the basic Notification No.32/99-CE (supra) in its proper prespective. 11. The intention of the Government in coming out with the area based exemption notification is to promote industrialization of the area. The Notification grants exemption to the specified goods manufactured within the designated area ; but such exemption has been operational through the refund mechanism. The CBEC Circular No.682/73/2002-CX dated 19.12.2002 has clarified that the refund paid under the area based exemption notification, is not the result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
