TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed: Procedural Compliance Key in Excise Refund Claims</h1> <h3>Chamong Tea Co. Limited (Duflating Tea Estate), Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh,</h3> Chamong Tea Co. Limited (Duflating Tea Estate), Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh, - 2022 (381) E.L.T. 252 (Gau.) Issues Involved:1. Correct appreciation of Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999.2. Applicability of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. Denial of excise refund benefit due to delay in filing statements.4. Denial of refund based on procedural lapses.5. Consistency with earlier Tribunal decisions on similar issues.Detailed Analysis:1. Correct Appreciation of Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999:The appellant sought exemption from duties of excise under Notification No. 33/99-CE, claiming a 53% increase in installed capacity. The CESTAT restored the Assessing Authority's rejection of the refund claims on the grounds of limitation. The appellant argued that the rejection was unjustified as the Central Board of Excise & Customs had clarified that Section 11B limitations were not applicable to refunds under this notification.2. Applicability of Limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944:The appellant contended that the limitation period under Section 11B was inapplicable to their refund claims. The court noted that while Section 11B limitations do not apply, the procedural requirements under Notification No. 33/99-CE must still be followed. The appellant failed to submit the required statement of duty paid by the 7th of the next month, as mandated by the notification.3. Denial of Excise Refund Benefit Due to Delay in Filing Statements:The appellant's refund claims were submitted approximately nine years after the expansion, which the Department argued was too late. The court upheld that despite the non-applicability of Section 11B, the appellant did not meet the procedural requirements of Notification No. 33/99-CE, specifically the timely submission of duty statements.4. Denial of Refund Based on Procedural Lapses:The court emphasized that procedural requirements under Notification No. 33/99-CE cannot be waived unilaterally by the manufacturer. The appellant's failure to follow the prescribed procedure, including timely filing of duty statements, justified the denial of the refund claims.5. Consistency with Earlier Tribunal Decisions on Similar Issues:The appellant referenced a previous High Court judgment in M/s M.K. Jokai Agri Plantations (P) Ltd, which held that refund claims under Notification No. 33/99-CE could not be denied on the grounds of limitation if procedural conditions were met. However, the court found that the appellant did not fulfill these conditions, distinguishing this case from the Jokai judgment.Conclusion:The court concluded that the appellant did not adhere to the procedural requirements of Notification No. 33/99-CE, specifically the timely submission of duty statements. As such, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the CESTAT's decision to restore the Assessing Authority's rejection of the refund claims. The court held that no substantial question of law arose, emphasizing the importance of following procedural requirements in revenue matters.
TaxTMI 