AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... first appellate authority. 2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are that the appellant set up a unit of bare pipe manufacturing before 31.12.2005 for getting benefit under the Notification No.39/2001-CE, dt.31.07.2001 and also set up a coating unit after 31.12.2005. CESTAT Ahmedabad vide Order No.A/1634-1637/WZB/AHD/ 2010, dt.26.08.2010 ordered that the coating unit set up after 31.12.2005 will not get the benefit of the said notification, accordingly, appellant obtained a fresh registration for the same, pursuant to the order of Tribunal. The lower adjudicating authority, while deciding the refund claim under the said notification for the period December 2007 to March 2008 sanctioned the refund to the tune of Rs.15,87,45,674/- towar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....85,461/- on erroneously refunded amount as per Para 9 of the OIA dt.26.04.2013. Against this portion of OIA, holding that interest not payable by M/s PSL Ltd., Revenue has filed appeal No.E/12536/2013 on the grounds that refund for the period 31.12.2005 was with respect to duty paid as normal clearances outside the mechanism of Notification No.39/2001-CE, dt.31.07.2001 and that interest was recoverable from appellant M/s PSL Ltd. 3. Shri Anand Nainawati (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant M/s PSL Ltd. argued that refund of Education Cess and SHE Cess is admissible to his client as these levies are not independent in as much as whenever the Basic Excise Duty is 'NIL', there will be no liability towards payment of Education Ces....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd once benefit of exemption Notification No.39/2001-CE, dt.31.07.2001 was not availed. That no show cause notice or opportunity was extended to the appellant to explain their case. 4. Shri S.K. Mall (A.R.) and Shri M. Kutty (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that refund of Education Cess and SHE cess is not admissible to the appellant M/s PSL Ltd as per the provisions of Notification No.39/2001-CE, dt.31.06.2001 as refund is eligible only to these levies specified in the exemption notification itself. They relied upon the following case laws:- i) CCE Shillong Vs Dharampal Satyapal Ltd 2012 (275) ELT 71 (Gau.)  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....07.2001 which reads as follows:- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978), the Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods specified in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) other than goods specified in the Annexure appended to this notification a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e lower authorities. 6. So far as the charging/deducting of interest amount of Rs.29,85,461/- is concerned, it is the argument of the appellant M/s PSL Ltd that provision of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable to the refunds under Notification No. 39/2001-CE, dt.31.07.2001 as per CBEC Circular issued. In this regard, it has been correctly argued by the ld.A.R. that once Coating Section was held to be in-eligible for exemption under Notification No.39/2001-CE, then the refund earlier sanctioned with respect to Coating Section becomes a case of erroneous refund. Such a refund pertaining to the Coating Section was a refund beyond the scope of Notification No.39/2001-CE. In such circumstances, inadmissible refund has t....