TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 999? - HELD THAT:- Notification No.33/99 provides for exemption to goods specified in the schedule appended to the Notification and cleared from a unit located in the state of Assam or Tripura or Meghalaya or Mizoram or Nagaland or Arunachal Pradesh as the case may be. From so much of the duty of excise, leviable thereon under any of the said acts as is equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of goods from the account current maintained under Rule 9 read with Rule 173 G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - it is apparent that the exemption is available to the gas based intermediate products. Sub-Sl. No. 13(i) of the schedule relates to gas exploration and production. Whereas Sl.No.13 mentions about gas based inter-mediate products. Sub-Sl. No.(i) refers to gas exploration and production. It is evident that the schedule not only refers to certain products but also to certain processes. The only inference one can get is that the products generated in the processes mentioned are covered by the entry and are eligible for exemption. The products mentioned at Sub-Sl. Nos. of Sl.No.13 to the schedule to the Notification are not gases. If one takes the view that the exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13(1) not being gas and also did not appear to cover under any other entries of the schedule to the said show cause notices covering different periods i.e. December 2007 to September 2008, October 2008, November 2008, December 2008, January 2009, February 2009, March 2009 and April 2009 were issued and refund orders R-45/2008-09, R-58/2008-09, R-61/2008-09, R-62/2008-09, R- 70/2008-09, R-76/2008-09, R-80/2008-09, R/91/2008-09, R-3/2009- 10 were issued sanctioning the refunds. Department preferred appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), who has rejected the appeals filed by the department. Now Revenue has filed the below cited appeals in respect of the orders passed by Commissioner(Appeals), as detailed below:- Refund Order Date of Review Appeal No Period No. Amount Order date/ Date of Communication Oct 2000- Nov 2007 R/45/2008-09 24,87,38,684 19.06.2008 26.09.2008 08.09.2009 E/887/2011 Oct-08 R/61/2008-09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was taken up for review. He further submits that Commissioner has categorically observed that all the entries in the Central Receipt Register during the period from 26.09.2008 to 18.06.2009 have been checked and no entries relating to receipt of said Order-in-Original dated 20.09.2008 was found. Learned Authorized Representative further submits that the Notification particularly giving an exemption should be interpreted strictly; in case of ambiguity the benefit should be given to Revenue and not to the party. He relies upon the following cases:- (a) Commissioner of Customs, Vijayawada Vs. Kimmi Steels Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (368) E.L.T. 92 (Tri.-Hyd.)] Affirmed by Supreme Court as reported in 2019 (368) ELT A 40(SC) (b) Commissioner of Cus. (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar Company [2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.)] (c) Little Star Foods Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Tax, Hyderabad [2019 (368) E.L.T. 730 (Tri.-Hyd.)] 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that in respect of the first Order i.e. R-55/2008-09, the Review Order was not issued within the time limit. Review was taken up after a period of one year therefore the Review Order is bad in law. He a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture, learned counsel for the respondents also raised the issue that this refund is more than Five Crores and must have reached Commissioner for pre-audit purposes. The learned Authorized Representative for the department replies stating that the proceedings of pre-audit do not travel up to the Commissioner and normally end at the level of Deputy Commissioner only and on this basis the Commissioner s action cannot be faulted. We find that though the Commissioner may claim that the issue was not brought to his notice by way of proposing a review, it is very difficult to comprehend as to how such a huge refund involving amount of ₹ 25.00 Crores was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner formally or informally. Therefore we do not find merits in the contentions of the appellants that the review could not be completed within the time limit prescribed as the order was not received and that the same could be taken up only after the receipt of duly attested photocopy of the Order-in-Original. In view of the above we hold that the review is undertaken much after the stipulated time limit prescribed therein. 6. Coming to the issue on merits, we find that as observed by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... products. Sub-Sl. No.(i) refers to gas exploration and production. It is evident that the schedule not only refers to certain products but also to certain processes. The only inference one can get is that the products generated in the processes mentioned are covered by the entry and are eligible for exemption. Going by the manufacturing process given by the respondents and not disputed by the Revenue, we find that Solvex GL is manufactured during the process of production of LPG gas which is subsequently bottled and sold. The plea taken by the department that the exemption is applicable only to gas based products appears to be farfetched; the word gas based intermediate products has to be understood to mean the products or the intermediate products generated during the exploration and production of gas based products . It is not the case of the department that the impugned products i.e. Solvex GL is not produced during the production /manufacture of LPG. Under such circumstances the exemption cannot be restricted to products which are formed in the gaseous stage alone for the reason that the exemption refers to gas based intermediate products and gas exploration and production. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
