TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid on the higher rate, the appellant though shown the higher duty in the invoices, subsequently, the excess paid duty was adjusted and the same was given reduction in the subsequent updated payment recovered from buyers of the goods. To this effect, the appellant filed refund claim on the ground that the differential duty on account of enhancement rate was not payable by them due to late receipts of the Notification which should come into force from the date of its publication and offer for sale. Relevant provisions is made under sub-section (5) of Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1994. From the said provision it is absolutely clear that any Notification issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2A) come into force on the date when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t ORDER The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of various excisable goods, namely, Petroleum Products, falling under Chapter 27 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They filed a refund claim of Rs. 15,94,96,844/- on the ground that they had cleared Motor spirits and High Speed Diesel at a higher rate on 12.11.2014 and 02.12.2014, due to enhancement of Central Excise Duty of said goods vide Notification No. 22/2014-CE dated12.11.2014 and 24/2014-CE dated 02.12.2014. The lower adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the effective date as per the sub-section 5 of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1994 would be the day of issue of Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mad) TVS Electronics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner 2017 (346) ELT 630 (Mad) Commissioner Vs. Addison Co. 2016 (339) ELT 177 (SC) 4. On the other hand, Shri. Dinesh M Prithiani, learned Assistant Commissioner (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order 5. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that in the present case limited issue is whether the refund claim is admissible or not. We find that the background of the refund claim is that the appellant though paid excess duty but the rate of duty was revised downward by notification. Only due to the reason that system was not updated, the duty was paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1:45 hours on 13.11.2014 in respect of Notification No. 22/2014 CE dated 12.12.2014 and on the late evening of 02.12.2014 in respect of Notification No. 24/2012-CE dated 02.12.2014. Therefore, in our view both the Notification will be effective from its publication and refund on this ground is admissible to the Appellant. The Judgments relies upon by the Appellant are squarely applicable in this matter. 7. Undisputedly, the Appellants are entitled to refund of the duty paid in excess during the relevant period. The only issue needs determination is whether the Appellants could be able to discharge the burden in establishing the fact that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to their customer and consequently eligible to the refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
