9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. 2. Shri N. Viswanathan, ld. Advocate appeared for the Appellant, Shri Anoop Singh, ld. Joint Commissioner appeared for the Respondent. 3. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of 'Coconut Oil' claimed to be classifiable under Heading 15.13 of CETA, 1985; as per Sl. No. 9 Notification No.06/2006 CE dated 01.03.2006 and Sl. No.9 of Notification 12/2012 CE dated 17.03.2012, with 'NIL' rate of duty. It appears that the CBEC issued a Circular No. 145/56/95 CX., dated 31.08.1995 whereby 'Coconut Oil' whether pure or refined and whether packed in small or large containers were to be required to be classified under Heading 1503 as long as the item satisfied the criteria of 'Fixed Vegetable Oil' in Chapter 3 of Chapter 15; if the same is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders of Bombay High Court and Kerala High Court. In the meanwhile, it appears that the Revenue officers took up investigation into the matter and as a consequence thereof, issued a SCN to the appellant hearing for the period, March 2005 to January 2010. It is the case of the appellant that the Revenue officers, despite the stay order of the Hon'ble High Court insisted the appellant to make payment of duty. As a result of which, they started depositing money equivalent to Excise Duty as compelled by the officers and that the said SCN was kept pending without adjudication for a number of years. It is the case of the appellant that they wrote a letter dated 11.11.2013, explaining the reasons for the deposit of money equivalent to duty, thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012 1,03,818/ 4.10.2012 1.10.2013 2 Oct 2012 1,10,443/ 5.11.2012 14.10.2013 3 Nove 2012 93,753/ 6.12.2012 11.11.2013 4 Dec 2012 1,04,178/ 9.01.2013 11.11.2013 5 Jan 2013 96,263/ 6.02.2013 11.11.2013 6 Feb 2013 to June 2013 4,88,637/ 9.03.2013,5.04.2013, 9.05.2013,5.06.2013 5.07.2013 3.12.2013 Total 9,97,092/ A173 SI. NO Month and year Amount of duty in Rs. Date of payment of duty Date of filing the claim 1 July 2013 to Oct 2013 4,02,924 07.08.2013, 11.09.2013, 07.10.2013& 07.11.2013 02.04.2014 2 Nov 2013 to Dec 2013 2,71,314 07.12.2013& 10.01.2014 02.04.2014 Total 6,74,238 A-174 SI. NO Month and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich withdrew the Circular No.890/10/2009-CX. Ironically, the Commissioner (Appeals) has heavily relied upon this Circular No. 890/10/2009-CX, to reject the appeal of the appellant. The case of the appellant, as available from its written submissions filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), are that letters dated 09.07.2009 and 04.08.2009 to them by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Tuticorin city-range are specific to the fact of the appellant's registration and pay Central Excise Duty; when the Superintendent was seized of the matter, visit by the officers of HPU and registering a case against them was itself an intimidation; issue of SCNs not only for those packed in less than 200 ml. but also for the other packages being contrary to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals thereby upholding the rejection of refund claims. It was his further case that an assessee has to know the status of his refund application and hence, it is necessary for the Revenue to issue a SCN thereby showing the reasons for accepting or rejecting their application, which is not done here and hence, the appellant was deprived of opportunity to offer any explanation insofar as the alleged 'delay' was concerned or at least on merits. This has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, the rejection of refund claims as upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) being not proper, requires to be set aside. It was thus pleaded that strangely the Commissioner (Appeals) has ignored the binding orders of higher judicial fora in the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
