TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... like growth of Industry in a Region have to be liberally construed and a narrow construction of the Notification which defeats the object cannot be accepted. The impugned order of the Tribunal is not based on correct appreciation of the provisions of Notification and denial of refund (of duty paid) to the appellant on the ground of delay is wholly unjustified. We also hold that statements of duty paid submitted in RT-12 returns by the appellant was substantial compliance of Clause 2(a) of the Notification and there was no need for it to submit a separate statement of the duty paid and claim refund. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C.Ex.App. 11/2016 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2018 - HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under the Central Excise Rules ? 3) Whether merely on the ground of delay of filing of the statement under para 2(a) of the Notification No.33/99-CE dated 8.07.1999 showing duty payment particulars can result in denial of Excise refund benefit to the appellant under the aforesaid Notification where the RT 12 returns were regularly filed within the specified period showing Central Excise duty paid during the period in question ? 4) Whether the assessee can be denied the substantial benefit of refund available as per Notification No.33/99-CE dated 8.07.1999 merely on the ground of lapse in following procedural requirements ? 5) Whether the CESTAT was justified in not following the earlier decisions of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 application on 18.5.2005 claiming refund of excise duty paid. Statements of duty paid for the Unit amounted to ₹ 27,09,705/-. On 16.2.2006, the Range Superintendent verified and found that there was substantial increase of over 25% and sent his report to the Divisional Office. Another verification was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Central and the Superintendent (Technical I) on 13.5.2006, who too found that there was substantial expansion of more than 25% in the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund of duty paid cannot be denied to the appellant on the ground of delay as no limitation is prescribed in the Notification. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Revenue has defended the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. The relevant Clauses 2 and 3 of the Notification are re-produced below for ready reference:- 2. The exemption contained in this Notification shall be given effect to in the following manner, namely (a) The manufacturer shall submit a statement of the duty paid from the said account current to the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, by the 7th of the next month in which the duty has been paid from the account current. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial expansion of not less than 25% on or before 24th day of December, 1997 and then file every month s statement of duty paid from the account current to the Assistant Commissioner. And, if these two conditions were fulfilled, the appellant was entitled to refund of the amount of duty paid. It is not in dispute that the Industrial Unit has undertaken increase by more than 25%. 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 ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid submitted in RT-12 returns amounts to full compliance of Clause 2(a) of the Notification and refund of duty paid cannot be denied for want of separate statement of such duty paid. A long standing decision adopting a particular construction which may have been acted upon by persons in the general conduct of affairs may not be departed from on the doctrine of stare decisis. 10. With these findings, we answer all the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant. We accordingly set aside the orders dated 8.11.2006, 9.10.2007 and 29.2.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, respectively and allow the appeal with cost of ₹ 1000/-. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
