TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that during the relevant period, there was amendment brought forth with retrospective application so that the appellant has to pay 8% of the value of exempted goods if common inputs are used for the manufacture of dutiable and exempted products - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No.: E/41105/2018 - Final Order No. 40017/2019 - Dated:- 3-1-2019 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri. M. Kannan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Semi Trailers. They cleared goods to Defence Research Laboratory, Hyderabad by availing exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 10/19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing for the appellant made oral and written submissions which can be broadly summarized as under: (i) The plea of the Revenue that the Finance Act, 2005 has validated machinery provisions relating to Rule 57AD ibid and therefore, refund is not sustainable and is not tenable as the amounts claimed as refund has been paid under protest. Therefore, unless the protest is vacated in the manner known to law, refund is sustainable. (ii) By virtue of the Finance Act, 2005, it is only possible to confirm demands for non-compliance of Rule 57AD during the period prior to the introduction of the Finance Act, 2005; that this case does not belong to such a category and the amounts having been paid under protest, the provisions in the Act ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rejection by the authorities below is therefore in order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The appellant has filed the refund claims on the belief that during the said period, the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that there is no provision for recovery of the Credit availed on common inputs used for manufacture of exempted goods. However, while adjudicating the refund proceedings, the same has been taken note of by the Refund Sanctioning Authority whereby it is seen that during the relevant period, there was amendment brought forth with retrospective application so that the appellant has to pay 8% of the value of exempted goods if common inputs are used for the manufacture of dutiable and exempted products. I therefore find no ground to inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
