9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh, wherein the applications filed by the appellant, for fixation of special rate of refund of central excise duty in term of Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25th April 2007 were rejected on the ground that it was time barred. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Plywood, Block Boards and Flush Doors falling under Chapter 44 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant set up a new industrial unit for the manufacture of plywood and allied products in Jeypore, Assam. The new unit started trial production with effect from 14th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber of the same year cannot be considered as time-barred. 3.1. The Appellant also placed their reliance on M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guwahati [Final Order Nos. 77524-77527 of 2023 dated 22.11.2023 in Excise Appeal Nos. 75476-75479 of 2014 - CESTAT, Kolkata] wherein the facts are similar to this case. In that case, the assessee had submitted applications for rate fixation for the FY 2009-10 on 29.09.2010 (for each of the units), since the actual value addition of the goods manufactured by the assessee was much higher than the percentage specified in the table of the notification i.e., 34%. However, the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati had rejected the aforesaid applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT, Kolkata] dealt with identical issue and held that the pecial value addition applications filed by the assessee for the period 2009-10 to 2016-17 after 30th September of the same year cannot be considered as time barred . The relevant part of the said order is reproduced below: "6. We find that the application for special rate fixing for the period 2009-10 to 2016-17 were initially held that they have filed the applications for fixing special rate after 30th September of the same year and is barred by limitation. 6.1 The said issue has been examined by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. V.V.F. Limited reported in 2020 (372) ELT 495 (S.C.), has held that the pendingrefund application s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under the earlier notifications". 6.2 Further, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Jyoty Labs reported in 2021 (378) ELT 269 (Gau.), has held that making such application for fixation of special rate under Notification No.32/99-CE and Notification No.31/2008-CE, after the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.V.F. (supra) were in time. 6.3 In view of the above, we hold that as all the applications were filed by the appellants before 20.04.2020. In that circumstances, all the applications were filed within time, therefore, the applications in question cannot be rejected on limitation." 6.1. We also observe that a similar view has been taken by the Tribunal, Kolkata in the case of M/s. Godrej Consumer Products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
