9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the four Appeals by this common order. 3. The Appellants have their manufacturing units in the State of Tripura and were accordingly registered with Central Excise department. To promote the industries in various parts of the country, Notification No.20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 was issued, under which the assessee was entitled to claim exemption in the manner stated therein. According to the procedure prescribed under the said Notification, the duty paid from PLA was eligible for refund to the assessee. This notification was later amended vide notification No.20/2008 dated 27.03.2008 restricting the quantum of refund amount in the manner stated therein. The amendment affected the interest of number of parties some of whom challenged the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d claim and non sanction of interest. The learned counsel has submitted that as per the spirit of the relevant Notifications and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the amendments were made to check the misuse of the said Notification. However, where the amount paid from PLA was less than the amount determined, the entire duty paid from PLA was to be refunded. In other words, where the amount paid from PLA is more than the percentage fixed in the amending Notification, only the percentage fixed was to be refunded but where it is less than the same, the entire amount paid from PLA was to be refunded. 8. In so far as the sanctity of amendment to Notification No.20/2007 by Notification No.20/2008 and 38/2008 is concerned, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present appeals, quashing and setting aside the subsequent notifications/industrial policies impugned in the respective writ petitions before the respective High Courts, are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the original writ petitions filed by the respective original writ petitioners before the respective High Courts challenging the respective subsequent notifications/industrial policies stand dismissed and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the challenge to the respective subsequent notifications/industrial policies impugned before the respective High Courts FAIL. However, it is CLARIFIED that the present judgment shall not affect the amount of excise duty already refunded, meaning thereby, the cases in which the excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the original authority rejected the refund application and it was not the case here that the refund arose due to the decision of the Tribunal. It is a settled legal position that where refund application is rejected by original authority and ultimately refund is held payable by any higher authority, the department is required to sanction interest after three months from the date of refund application. The Appellant relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. UOI reported in 2011(273) ELT 3(SC) which has been followed by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. Joint Secretary Ministry of Finance reported in 2017 (345) ELT 619 (Cal.) and the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
