9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Tariff, 1985. They were clearing the product after observing the Central Excise procedure on payment of appropriate Central Excised duty in terms of Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999. The factory was entitled to the benefit under the aforesaid notification as all the necessary conditions indicated in the above mentioned notification was complied. They were allowed refund of Rs. 34,66,423/- for the period September 1999 to 31.12.2002 to the extent of the duty paid through their account current. 2. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, vide Order dated 30.05.2003, demanded an amount of Rs.8,58,029/-, as erroneous refund, in terms of the retrospective amendment of the Notification No.33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, brought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taken refund of Rd.23,48,518/- and recovery action initiated against erroneous refund, which was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide O-I-A dated 10.12.2009. Since, the issue involved in all the three impugned orders are the same, all the three appeals all taken up together for decision. 5. In their submissions, the Appellants together stated that (i) The demands are not sustainable as they were made in excess of the power conferred under section 153 of the Finance Act 2003 (Corresponding to Clause 145 of Finance Bill, 2003). (ii) The Tribunal Kolkata vide its Order dated 12/03/2018 in Appeal No Ex/355/2008 between Hunwal Tea Estate Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh held that the Revenue has acted beyond the scope of Cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty nor impost of any nature which can be collected. (viii) If the demands were paid it would result in excess payment of duty. Accordingly, they contended that the demands are not sustainable. 6. The Ld Departmental Representative reiterated the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned orders. 7. Heard both sides and perused the documents available on record. 8. We find that the demands in these cases have arisen due to retrospective amendment of Notification 33/99-CE dated 08/07/99 through section 153 of the Finance Act 2003 . The said retrospective amendment was upheld by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court vide its Order dated 21/09/2006.The above said amendment envisaged that CENVAT Credit availed shall be payable retros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
