TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... special value addition and thus, they are only eligible for refund upto 56% of the value addition rate as mentioned in para 2A of the Notification No. 20/2007-CE (as amended). Hence, re-credit of duty in excess of 56% of value addition is liable to be recovered from them. The Appellant stated that in the said applications they have clearly indicated that they would have applied for fixation of special value addition rate, if the relevant Notification was in place at that point of time. Therefore, in terms of the Hon ble Supreme Court order in UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. VERSUS M/S V.V.F. LTD. AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. [ 2020 (4) TMI 885 - SC ORDER] , which had an effect of reinstating the amended notification, the Appellant vide its letter da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period April 2009 to February 2012, five Show Cause Notices were issued to the Appellant alleging that they had contravened Notification No. 20/2007,as amended, inasmuch as the they had (i) irregular availment and utilization of credit of tax paid on clearance of waste and scrap (viz. SCNs at S. No. 1 and 2 in table below) (ii) availment of self-credit in excess of 56% of value addition rate as prescribed in the amended notification (viz. SCNs at S. No. 3, 4 and 5 in table below). Details of the five SCNs are mentioned herein below:- S. N. Show Cause Notice No. and date Duty Demand Period 1. V(19)15/CE/Adj/ADC/Slg/2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... special value addition rate for FYs 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 in terms of the workings already submitted by them vide letters dated 22.09.2010, 09.09.2011 and 16.07.2012. 4. The above mentioned five SCNs and application for fixation for special value addition rate was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner, vide Order-in-Original dated 10.06.2022 wherein the (i) demand in respect of SCNs 1 2 has been confirmed along with penalty (ii) With respect to SCNs 3 to 5, demand of Central Excise duty has been confirmed along with interest. Further, the special value addition applications filed by the Appellant were rejected. The Appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned order. 5. In their submissions, the Appellant stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have applied for fixation of special value addition rate, if the relevant Notification was in place at that point of time. Therefore, in terms of the Hon ble Supreme Court order dated 22.04.2020, which had an effect of reinstating the amended notification, the Appellant vide its letter dated 24.08.2020 requested for fixation of special value addition rate for the FYs 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 in terms of the workings submitted earlier. The Appellant contended that the Ld. Commissioner ought to have considered and decided their application for fixation of special value addition rates on merits. 8. The Appellant stated that in various cases, deciding the same issue, it has been held that any recovery of excess refund/ self-credit p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... njustifiable and against the settled judicial decisions. Hence, they prayed for setting aside the demands made in the impugned order. 10. In the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed penalty amounting to Rs.14,19,581/- under Section 11AC of the Excise Act in respect of SCN No. 1 2 for the period April 2009 to May 2010. The Appellant stated that the present demand has been ascertained by the department from the refund application and supporting documents submitted by the Appellant. Hence, there cannot be any allegation of fraud and suppression, when all the relevant evidence was placed before the department by the Appellant themselves. Thus, it cannot be alleged that there is any fraud or suppression on the part of the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e FYs 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 in terms of the workings submitted earlier. The Appellant contended that the Ld. Commissioner ought to have considered and decided their application for fixation of special value addition rates on merits. We find merit in the contention of the Appellant. The Ld. Commissioner ought to have considered and decided their application for fixation of special value addition rates on merits. We find that the Ld. Commissioner s observation that the Appellant had foregone the option to seek special value addition and thus, they are only eligible for refund upto 56% of the value addition rate as mentioned in para 2A of the Notification No. 20/2007-CE (as amended), is factually not correct. The Appellant, vide their l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
