Revenue's appeal dismissed, Respondent eligible for exemption & refund, interest under Section 11BB upheld.

The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, with the appellate authority upholding the Respondent's eligibility for the exemption, the refund claim of Rs. 44,16,000/-, and the payment of interest on the refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision was based on compliance with procedural requirements, the seizure of the Registration Certificate by the department, and the precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court regarding the applicability of Section 11BB to refunds under Notification No. 33/99-CE.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Registration Certificate (RC) was with HQ Anti-Evasion or the Respondent.
2. Whether the processes carried out in Premises-II amounted to manufacture.
3. Whether the Respondent is eligible to claim the benefit of Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 8/7/1999.
4. Whether refund is admissible to the Respondent.
5. Whether interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is payable on the refund.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Registration Certificate (RC) Possession:
The first appellate authority concluded that the RC was seized by HQ Anti-Evasion officers on 26/5/2003, as supported by the department's statements in EDM-410/04 and EDM-530/04 filed with CESTAT. The Respondent had informed the Range Superintendent about the change of address and factory premises on 23/1/2003 and had filed the required application for amendment on 27/3/2003. The appellate authority found no motive for the Respondent to hide the RC and concluded that it was indeed seized by the department, thus restoring the RC and ordering suitable amendments.

2. Processes Amounting to Manufacture:
The first appellate authority did not explicitly address this issue in the appeal, as the main contention revolved around the registration and eligibility for exemption and refund. The adjudicating authority had previously determined that the blending and mixing activities did not amount to manufacture.

3. Eligibility for Notification No. 33/99-CE:
The appellate authority held that the Respondent was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 8/7/1999. The Respondent had complied with the procedural requirements by informing the jurisdictional range officer and applying for an amendment to the RC. Despite the department's argument that the RC was not valid for Premises-II, the appellate authority found that the Respondent had a valid registration from 1/4/2003, thus entitling them to the exemption.

4. Refund Admissibility:
The appellate authority decided in favor of the Respondent, allowing the refund claim of Rs. 44,16,000/-. The Respondent had paid this amount in April 2003, and the appellate authority found no reason to deny the refund, given the valid registration and compliance with procedural requirements.

5. Interest on Refund under Section 11BB:
The appellate authority ordered the payment of interest on the refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue argued that Section 11B provisions were not applicable to refunds under Notification No. 33/99-CE, citing CBEC Circulars. However, the jurisdictional Guwahati High Court in Amalgamated Plantations (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2013 (296) ELT 13 (Guw.)] held that Section 11BB applies to any excise duty refund, including those under the said notification. The appellate authority followed this precedent, rejecting the Revenue's argument and upholding the payment of interest.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, with the appellate authority upholding the Respondent's eligibility for the exemption, the refund claim, and the payment of interest on the refund. The decision was based on compliance with procedural requirements, the seizure of the RC by the department, and the jurisdictional High Court's interpretation of the applicability of Section 11BB to refunds under Notification No. 33/99-CE.

---