TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 60
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that their partnership firm is a manufacturing concern and it is claimed that it had commenced commercial production from 6-2-2009. It is projected that the petitioner was availing excise duty exemption in terms of notification dated 25-4-2007. However, the said notification was amended vide notification dated 27-3-2008, whereby the value addition undertaken in the manufacture of goods under Area Based Exemption had been introduced and it is projected that in connection with goods covered by Chapter 72, the petitioner became entitled to refund of central excise duty paid on value addition, which was 39% as per Serial No. 8 instead of 100% was hitherto available under notification dated 25-4-2007. Thereafter, Notification No. 20/2008, 38/2008 and 56/2008 were issued to amend notification dated 25-4-2007. An aggrieved manufacturer assailed the notifications dated 27-3-2008 and 10-6-2008 and this Court by judgment and order dated 24-6-2009 allowed W.P. (C) No. 2718/2008 [2010 (261) E.L.T. 98 (Gau.)], thereby setting aside the said two notifications, holding that the writ petitioner therein was entitled to 100% exemption from payment of excise duty as per notifications dated 8-7-1999 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l rate of value addition as such it was impossible to file application for fixation of special rate with the timeline and prayed that till disposal of the application for special rate, the proceeding under show cause notice be kept in abeyance. 8. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the time limit to file such application was not later than 30th of September of the relevant financial year, but during the said period, due to COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not take appropriate steps. Nonetheless, by virtue of orders passed by the Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 3/2020 and MA. No. 665/2021 [2021 (376) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) = 2021 (48) G.S.T.L. 225 (S.C.)] arising out of the said case, the period of limitation, whether condonable or not stood extended from 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021. Accordingly, it is submitted that the application dated 20-10-2021 is required to be considered and disposed of before realizing refund. In support of his submissions, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on (i) order dated 24-3-2021 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 1644/2021 (M/s. Jyothy Labs Ltd. v. Union of India and 2 Others), (ii) ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the cited case, such application was made on 18-5-2020. However, this Court had given its final verdict in favour of the assessee. The operative part of the said judgment is quoted below :- "17. Without going into the aspect whether the requirement to submit such application within 30th September of the given financial year is a mandatory requirement or a directory requirement, what we take note of is that such a provision has been incorporated to streamline the process for submission of the application seeking for the fixation of a special rate to the value addition to manufactured goods. 18. We have to take note of that as long as there was a judgment of the Division Bench in WA No. 243/2009 in favour of the petitioner interfering with the modification for exemption of excise duty and the matter thereafter was pending before the Supreme Court on an appeal with an interim order dated 7-12-2015 requiring a refund of the 50% of the amount of excise duty, the occasion had not arisen for the assessee to go further and seek for a fixation of a special rate in respect of the value addition to the manufactured goods and even if there would have been a determination of su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ejecting such application for the reason that it was not submitted within 30th September of the given financial year would perhaps be not available for the respondent authorities for rejecting the application. 21. In the circumstance, we direct the Principal Commissioner, GST, Guwahati to consider the application of the petitioner dated 18-5-2020 seeking for fixation of a special rate to the value addition to the manufactured goods of the given financial year and decide the same as per law." 11. For the purpose of considering the prayer for interim relief, the Court finds that in the hereinbefore quoted paragraphs of the case of M/s. Jyothy Labs Ltd. (supra), this Court had categorically held that the requirement of requesting for fixation of a special rate in respect of value addition to the manufactured goods had arisen only after the final judgment of the Supreme Court of India on 22-4-2020. It is seen that by virtue of orders passed by the Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 3/2020 and MA. No. 665/2021 arising out of the said case, the period of limitation, whether condonable or not stood extended from 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021 and it was further p....