AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. The substantial questions of law are as under :- "(1) Whether the order dated 29-2-2016 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata ("CESTAT") is based on correct appreciation of the provisions of the Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999? (2) Whether the CESTAT was legally justified in holding that the claim of refund of the appellant was barred by limitation in spite of the fact that there was no requirement of filing refund application under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in cases of exemption under Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999 and whether the assessee is not entitled to refund of Excise duty under Notification No. 33/9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the manufacturer of Tea including Tea Waste under sub-heading No. 0902.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. 3. The Union of India, vide Memorandum dated 24-12-1997, unveiled a New Industrial Policy for the North Eastern Region and in order to give stimulation to the development of Industrial Infrastructure to the North Eastern Region, the said Region was made tax free for a period of 10 years giving incentives to those who wanted to establish Industries in the Region. Pursuant thereto, Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999 was issued granting all exemptions contained therein to New Industrial Units which commenced their commercial production on or after 24-12-1997 and Industrial Units existing before 24-12-1997 but had under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed detailed replies to the show cause notices and reiterated that the Units had undertaken substantial expansion in terms of the condition of the Notification and therefore, refund of duty paid cannot be denied on the grounds of eligibility and delay. The response of the appellant did not appeal to the Assistant Commissioner and he rejected the claim for refund of duty paid vide order dated 9-7-2010. 7. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who held that appellant had submitted refund claims on month to month basis in RT-12 returns showing clearance and duty paying details as well as reports of expansion of the Units by more than 45.80%, 57% and 27.56% respectively after 24-12-1997 and therefore t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12 return filed. The Tribunal, lastly, held that since the refund claim was made after 5-6 years, the same was time barred. It is in this backdrop, the appellant has filed the present appeals. 9. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that statement of duty paid submitted in the RT-12 returns by the 7th of next month in which the duty was paid from the account current was substantial compliance and therefore the Assistant Commissioner ought to have refunded the amount of duty paid by the 15th of next month or if there was any doubt, he should have refunded the amount on provisional basis. It has also been argued that in any case, the refund of duty paid cannot be denied to the appellant on the ground of delay as no limitation is pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shall apply only to the following kind of units, namely :- (a) New industrial units which have commenced their commercial production on or after the 24th day of December, 1997; (b) Industrial units existing before the 24th day of December, 1997 but which have undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than twenty five per cent on or after the 24th day of December, 1997." 11. A bare reading of the above quoted clauses of the Notification makes it clear that the appellant was first required to prove its eligibility for notified exemptions by establishing that the three industrial units had undertaken substantial expansion of not less than ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnot deny the substantive benefit, otherwise available to the assessee. Also exemptions made with a beneficient object like growth of Industry in a Region have to be liberally construed and a narrow construction of the Notification which defeats the object cannot be accepted. For these reasons, we conclude that the impugned order of the Tribunal is not based on correct appreciation of the provisions of Notification and denial of refund (of duty paid) to the appellant on the ground of delay is wholly unjustified. We also hold that statements of duty paid submitted in RT-12 returns by the appellant was substantial compliance of Clause 2(a) of the Notification and there was no need for it to submit a separate statement of the duty paid and cla....