2018 (7) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tea including tea waste classifiable under Chapter 9 of Central Excise Tariff Act. They claim benefit under area-based exemption notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.99 as amended from time to time. The appellant submitted an application dated 27.02.2004 seeking exemption from duties on the ground that they have undergone substantial expansion of their factory after 24.12.1997, in terms of the notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999. A Show Cause Notice dated 08.11.2004 was issued proposing to reject the application for refund amounting to Rs. 47,53,185/-. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim as the claim was made after a lapse of more than 5 years. No satisfactory explanatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... such refund claim/statements as prescribed in Clause 2(a), are required to be filed by the 7th of the next month. The case laws relied upon by the respondents/assessees only allowed RT-12 returns as due statements for the purpose of Clause 2(a) of the notification. The very next Clause 2(b) casts a duty on the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner (AC/DC) to verify such statement and refund the amount of duty paid from account covered during the month by the 15th of next month. Clause 2(a) of this exemption notification cannot be read in isolation. Statement under Clause 2(a) (whether specifically filed under exemption Notification No. 33/99-C.E. or in the form of RT-12 return) should have a claim for refund which shall be sanctioned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9-C.E. or a RT-12 Return but such statement should have a claim for refund of duty paid through PLA. The provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable to the refunds arising out of exemption Notification No. 33/99-C.E. because specific monthly time limits have been prescribed under this notification. Accordingly, on cumulative reading of various provisions of Notification No. 33/99-C.E., we are of the considered opinion that refund claims, filed after more than 5 to 6 years of such duty payment, are clearly time-barred. accordingly. The Respondents would be entitled to the refund of duty paid on such re-calculated value in terms of the Notification No. 32/99-C.E. and their customers would only be entitled to ....