2018 (9) TMI 1265 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Grants Refund for Duty Paid via PLA & Cess under Notifications

M/s Insecticides India Ltd. Versus CCE, Jammu & Kashmir

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in favor of the appellants, holding that they were entitled to claim refund/self-credit of duty paid through PLA under ... Refund claim under N/N. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 - rejection on the grounds that the appellants are not entitled to self credit/ refund of education/ higher education cess paid by them in terms of N/N. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 and also on the ground that in terms of Notification Nos. 19/2008-CE dated 27.03.2008 and 34/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008, there are some restrictions for refund/ self credit to the appellants, instead self credit/ refund of duty paid through PLA. Refund/ self-credit of education cess/ higher education cess - Held that:- The issue is settled in the case of M/s. SRD Nutrients Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Guwahati [2017 (11) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], wherein it has been held that education cess/ higher education cess is continuation of duty paid by the assessee. If the assessee is entitled to refund of duty paid through PLA, then for the education cess/ higher education cess also, the assessee is entitled to claim refund/ self-credit - refund allowed. In terms of N/N. 19/2008- CE dated 27.03.2008 and 34/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008, whether the appellants are entitled to claim refund/self-credit as restricted by these notifications or not? - Held that:- The notifications in question have been examined by the Hon’ble J & K High Court in the case of Reckit Benckiser vs. UOI [2010 (12) TMI 237 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT], wherein the Hon’ble High Court quashed the notifications in question. Therefore, in terms of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002, the appellants are entitled to claim refund/ self-credit of duty paid through PLA - refund allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Appeal against rejection of refund claim under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 on grounds of entitlement to self-credit/refund of education/higher education cess and restrictions for refund/self-credit under Notification Nos. 19/2008-CE dated 27.03.2008 and 34/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008.Analysis:The appellants challenged the rejection of their refund claim under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002, focusing on two main issues. Firstly, whether they are entitled to self-credit/refund of education/higher education cess paid. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of M/s. SRD Nutrients Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Guwahati, where it was established that education cess/higher education cess is a continuation of duty paid by the assessee. Consequently, if the assessee can claim a refund of duty paid through PLA, they are also eligible for a refund/self-credit of education cess/higher education cess paid through PLA. Thus, the appellants were deemed entitled to claim such refund/self-credit.Moving to the second issue, the Tribunal examined whether the appellants could claim refund/self-credit under Notification No. 19/2008-CE dated 27.03.2008 and 34/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008, given any restrictions imposed by these notifications. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble J & K High Court in the case of Reckit Benckiser vs. UOI, where the court invalidated the said notifications, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were indeed entitled to claim refund/self-credit of duty paid through PLA under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002. This decision was supported by a previous ruling of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Biostadt India Limited & others.In the final analysis, the Tribunal held that the refund/self-credit could not be constrained by the provisions of Notification No. 19/2008-CE dated 27.03.2008 and 34/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008. The appellants were affirmed to have the right to claim refund/self-credit of duty paid through PLA under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002. It was explicitly stated that apart from these specific issues, no other matters were raised in the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.