TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 700
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 87,78,584/-. The three appeals are disposed off accordingly." 2.1 Pursuant to the adhoc exemption order dated 1^st May 2002 issued from F No 134/8/2000-CX.4 by the Government of India, exercising power under Section 5A (2) Of the Central Excise Act, 1944, appellants preferred two refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 as detailed below: S N Reference No and Date Amount 'Rs 1 F No KRN/RN/CED/ITSPL dated 17.10.2002 87,78,584/- 2 F No KRN/RN/CED/PIPE dated 17.10.2002 3,50,34,644/- 2.2 Both the refund Claims were considered by the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division Ratnagiri and disposed of with order as follows: "ORDER 1) I, sanction the Refund claim of Rs. 3,50,34,644 paid as Central Excise duty and order to credit the said amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund established under Section 12-C read with sub-section (1) of the Section 11B of the Act. 2) I reject the refund claim amounting to Rs. 87,78,384/- being a Central Excise paid by M/s Isco Track Sleepers, Kudai, under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 11-B read with sub section (2) of Section 11-B of the Act. This amount was refunded by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sistant Commissioner was ground of unjust enrichment, hence when he holds that this ground do not exist the refund should have been allowed. iv. Adhoc Exemption Order dated 2nd May 20-02 was issued in supersession of the earlier Adhoc Exemption Order dated 4th April 1994, the legal effect thereof was that the earlier order was obliterated /given up and there could be no recourse to the same. A fortori, any proceedings, which had been commenced pursuant to the said Adhoc Exemption Order dated 4th April, 1994 would also abate and were of no consequence. Thus only proceedings, which remained relevant, were the ones, which were initiated pursuant to the Adhoc Exemption Order dated 2nd May 2002. 3.2 Revenue has in its appeal has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) stating that:- i. The order of adjudicating authority to sanction the refund claims of Rs. 3,50,3r4,644/- and crediting the same to Consumer Welfare Fund is erroneous in as much as Appellants have failed to produce any duty paying documents to establish that the amount of duty in respect of which the refund claim has been filed was paid by him. Thus in absence of such duty paying documents the refund cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allenged by them is incorrect, in as much as the said order was challenged before Commissioner (Appeal) and then before Tribunal. Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed on the ground that the clearance from Committee of secretaries was required before the appeals can be filed. Tribunal granted liberty to revive the appeals as and when the aforesaid clearance was obtained. e. Appellants approached the Committee of Secretaries, and after deliberations within the Committee of Secretaries, fresh Adhoc Exemption Order was issued in 2002 superseding the earlier order of 1994. f. Since fresh adhoc exemption order has been issued there was no need to revive the appeals before the Tribunal, and fresh refund application made before the jurisdictional officers.. The proceedings in the refund application pursuant to the adhoc exemption order of 1994 do not lend any support to the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). g. Since the exemption has been granted in respect of the pre-stressed concrete sleepers received by them on payment of duty from various specified suppliers, they alone where eligible to the refund of duty paid in respect of those sleepers. h. Since they are the ultima....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on further and hence refund claim cannot be allowed in their favour. (Mafatlal Industries Ltd. [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)] & Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC) 95 (SC)] e. In case of National Winder {2003 (154) ELT 350 (SC)] it has been categorically held that conditions of Section 11B need to be complied by the buyer of goods if he is claiming the refund. f. In case of Grasim Industries [2015 (318) ELT 594 (SC)] it has been held that bar of unjust enrichment applies also to cases of captive consumption of capital goods and in case of Allied Photo graphics India Ltd. [2004 (166) ELT 3 (SC)], Larger bench of Supreme Court has laid own that, the distributor, purchaser who claims to have borne the incidence of duty, must prove that they have not passed on the incidence of duty to any other person. g. In case of Addison & Co 2016-TIOL-146-SC-CX-LB apex court has laid down that buyer has to show that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other person. Appellants have failed to demonstrate the same. Hence refund cannot be allowed to them. h. PSIL has not filed any appeal against the assessment of goods cleared by them for which refund is claimed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed by the appellant p. The appellants have in fact capitalized the expenses claimed by them as refund as is evident from 17th Annual Report 2006-07, 18th Annual Report 2007-08 and Unaudited Financial Results for the Half Year ending 30.09.2017. Having capitalized the said expenses they have passed on the burden of incidence of duty further. Hence for this reason the refund claims need to be rejected. Thus the appeal filed by department allowed and that filed by the appellant be rejected. 5.1 We have considered the submissions made by Counsel for the Appellant and by learned Authorized Representative for the revenue and also the submissions made in the appeals filed by the Appellant (E/2445/05) and that filed by Revenue (E/2943/05). 5.2 Since the issue has long drawn history it is worthwhile to list down the dates and corresponding events Date Event 04.04.1994 Ad Hoc Exemption Order issued by Ministry of finance exempting payment of duty on manufacture of concrete sleeper for the period December 1990 to 31st March 1995. 27.07.1994 Prestress applied for refund of excise duty of Rs. 3,04,47,528.78 paid by them during the period 28th August 1992 to 31st M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to list out discrepancies in the Refund Claims filed by the Appellant and returned the same with a direction that fresh refund claims be filed by the Appellant. 17.12.2002 Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice calling upon the Appellant to show cause as to why their refund claims should not be rejected. 24.01.2003 Assistant Commissioner called upon the Appellant to provide an invoice wise statement duly supported by invoice copies of procurement of concrete sleepers. 03.02.2003 Appellant replied to the show cause notice submitting that all requisite documents had been furnished and they were entitled to refund under the provisions of Section 11B. 07.03.2003 ISCO informed the Department that they had issued a credit note to the Appellant on account of the excise duty paid by the Appellant to ISCO in respect of concrete sleepers manufactured and supplied to the Appellant. 25.03.2003 Assistant Commissioner called upon the Appellant to provide clarifications in respect of submissions made by ISCO on 07.03.2003. 22.09.2003 The Assistant Commissioner passed the OIO allowing refund of Rs. 46,27,943/- to the Appellant in respect of the excise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under Section 5A(2), the refund claim seeking exemption from duty be granted.? iii. Where the proceedings in respect of the refund of duty exempted under the Adhoc Exemption Order, concluded by the order of the Tribunal, dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants on the ground of seeking clearance from the Committee of Secretaries? iv. Whether the second refund claim was maintainable consequent to issuance of Second Adhoc Exemption Order in the year 2002 in supersession of the adhoc exemption order of 1994? v. Whether the appellants have produced sufficient documentary evidence to establish that they have paid the duty for which they are seeking the refund, to satisfy the requirements of Section 11B? vi. Whether Bar of Unjust enrichment applicable in such cases where the refund claim is filed by the person qua whom adhoc exemption order is issued? 6.1 In respect of the issue at (i) learned Authorized Representative has relied upon series of case laws to submit that the goods in question at the time of clearance from the factory assessed to duty and duty paid accordingly. Once the assessment has been made and the said assessment order is not challenged and set ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of Section 25(2) can only be invoked in public interest and not to grant benefit to a particular person alone." 6.5 Thus it is quite evident from the above stated decisions and the provisions of the sub-section 2 to Section 5A, it is quite evident that the Adhoc Exemption Order issued under the said sub-section is distinct from the general exemption granted under Section 5A(1). The section exemption is ranted qua the user of the goods exempted for specified purpose. The said adhoc exemption order is issued in public interest and not to grant benefit to a particular person. 6.6 After issuance of the adhoc exemption order, the same can be implemented either by way of refund in respect of the duty paid on the goods received by the person qua whom said adhoc exemption order has been issued or by way of non-payment of duty in respect of the goods covered by the said adhoc exemption order and still not cleared from the source, i.e. from the factory of supplier or from the port of clearance in case of imported goods. Central Board of Excise and Customs has vide Circular No 12/97-Cus clarified as follows: "Circular No. 12/97-Cus., dated 12-5-1997 [From F. No. 455/18/95-Cus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid exemption has been issued. 6.7 The decisions relied upon by the learned Authorized representative do not help the cause because none of the said order has dealt with the situation, wherein the adhoc exemption order has been issued. All the decisions relied upon deal with the situation where the goods have been assessed and cleared on payment of duty by the person who claims the refund of duty on the account of certain error in earlier assessment. In the case of adhoc exemption order the goods in hand of the person clearing the goods continue to be dutiable and are assessed accordingly. However these goods get exempted in the hand of recipient qua whom the adhoc exemption order has been issued. Thus the refund claimed by the recipient is on the basis of the adhoc exemption order issued to him in respect of the duty which has been correctly assessed and paid by the supplier/ manufacturer of the goods. Thus the goods qua the supplier continue to be dutiable and are exempted only qua the recipient by the said adhoc exemption order. 6.8 In case of MRF [1997 (92) ELT 309 (SC)], Hon'ble Apex Court held- "2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee. Once the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is appealable under the statute and the party aggrieved did not choose to exercise the statutory right of filing an appeal, it is not open to the party to question the correctness of the order of the adjudicating authority subsequently by filing a claim for refund on the ground that the adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing his order. If this position is accepted then the provisions for adjudication in the Act and the Rules, the provisions for appeal in the Act and the Rules will lose their relevance and the entire exercise will be rendered redundant. This position in our view, will run counter to the scheme of the Act and will introduce an element of uncertainty in the entire process of levy and collection of excise duty. Such a position cannot, be countenanced. The view taken by us also gain support from the provision in sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 wherein it is laid down that where as a result of any order passed in appeal or revision under the Act, refund of any duty becomes due to any person, the proper officer, may refund, the amount to such person without his having to make any claim in that behalf. The provision indicates the importance attached to an order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeal) have Not disputed this position in law. Accordingly we hold decisions as relied upon by learned Authorized Representative will not act to bar the processing of refund claim filed on account of adhoc exemption order issued subsequent to clearance of the goods. 6.14 Tribunal has in case of Food Corporation of India [1984 (17) ELT 180 (T)] expressed the same view as follows: It would be seen that whereas Section 25(1) contemplates notification in the Official Gazette, sub-section (2) speaks of a "special order in each case" exempting goods from duty. In the Civil Writ 1802/ 1979 the Delhi High Court observed "the considerations of retroactivity are not relevant for an order under Section 25(2) and the impugned order is not a retrospective in character". The decision quoted by the learned Counsel for the Department all relate to legislation such as rules, regulations, notifications etc. They do not deal with an order which by its very nature appears to be more an executive fiat than a piece of legislation such as a notification under sub- section (1) of Section 25 is, because of its general application. We cannot understand why an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fied. For ease of reference Rule 57C is reproduced below: "(1) No credit of the specified duty shall be allowed on such quantity of inputs which is used in the manufactured of final products which are exempt from the whole of the duty of exercise leviable thereon or are chargeable to nil rate of duty except when the final products are either, - (i)cleared to a unit in a Free Trade Zone; or. (ii)cleared to a hundred per cent. export-oriented undertaking; or (iii)cleared to a unit in an Electronic Hardware Technology Park or Software Technology Parks; or (iv)supplied to the United Nations or an international organisation for their official use or supplied to projects funded by them, on which exemption of duty is available under notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 108/ 95-Central Excises, dated 28th August, 1995. (2)Where a manufacturer avails of the credit of specified duty on any inputs and he is engaged in the manufacture of any final product which is chargeable to duty as well as in the manufacture of any other final product which is exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the Commissioner (Appeal) and then before the Tribunal. Tribunal has vide its order No 2003 & 4/97/WRB dated 23/4/1997 held as follows: "The appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking. The appeals are against rejection of refund. Clearance from the Committee of Secretaries constituted by the Cabinet Secretary is required before these appeals can be taken up, as ordered by the Supreme Court in ONGC case 1992 (61) ELT 3 (SC). 2. Advocate for the appellant says that matter has not been taken up so far for obtaining such clearance. These appeals are dismissed. The appellant is at liberty to seek revival of these appeals as and when such clearance is obtained." 8.2 The said decision as is evident is pursuant to the direction Of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ONGC supra, which is reproduced below: "3. We direct that the Government of India shall set up a Committee consisting representatives from the Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of Government of India, Ministry and Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India and Public Sector Undertakings in between themselves, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction of The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of ONGC supra. In fact matter was alive before the Committee of Secretaries and the concerned Ministries. Ministry of Finance and Ministry have after considering the issue resolved the issue by issuing the revised Adhoc Exemption Order in 2002. 8.6 Thus the refund claims have to be considered in the light of the relevant provisions of Central; Excise Act, 1944 and the Adhoc Exemption Order issued in 2002. 8.7 Revenue has relying on the decisions in case Of {M. Nagabhushana [2011 (271) ELT 481 (SC)], MJ Exporters Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (325) ELT 216 (SC)], FCI (2002 (146) ELT 447 (Tri.-De1.)] & ABM International Ltd. [2015 (322) ELT 818 (SC)]}, have argue that Since the Appellant had not challenged the order of Tribunal passed in 1997, Principle of Resjudiacta shall apply and the said refund claims need to be rejected on that account. We do not find any merits in the said argument, because the proceedings in the respect of the said refunds in terms of the adhoc exemption order had not been concluded and after the decision of tribunal was matter was before the Committee of Secretaries. When Tribunal had dismissed the appeal with liberty to r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the time of at which the amendment, repeal, supersession or rescinding takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any rule, notification or order so amended, repealed, superseded or recinded or anything done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any rule, notification or order so amended, repealed superseded or rescinded; Or (d) effect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed under or in violation of any rule, notification or order so amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may b instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the rule, notification or order as the case may be, had not been amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded." 9.4 From the opening paragraph of the said section it is quite evident from the phrase "unless a different intention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... supersession or rescinding shall not - (a) ....... (b) ....... (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any rule, notification or order so amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded; or (d) ........ (e) ........ and any such.................." As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in P.V. Mohammad Barmay Sons v. Director of Enforcement [1992 (61) E.L.T. 337 (S.C.)] cited by the learned SDR, we have got to enquire into the question whether the new Rules manifest any intention contrary to the superseded rules and, if such intention is found, Section 38A ibid cannot be applied. As an intention contrary to the one underlying the Old Rules 140(2) and 143A appears from the 2001 Rules, Section 38A ibid is not a saving provision for the respondents to claim the benefit of the above old rules beyond 30-6-2001. There is no saving clause in the preamble to the 2001 Rules either. On the other hand, the preamble to the Central Excise Rules, 2002, contains a saving clause as follows : "In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and in supersession of the Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng a finding of fact to the effect that the person claiming the refund has suffered the burden of the duty paid by him and has not passed on the said burden to anyone else. However in terms of Section 11B(2) reproduced below certain exceptions have been carved to the said principle: "(2) If, on receipt of any such application, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty paid by the applicant is refundable, he may make an order accordingly and the amount so determined shall be credited to the Fund : Provided that the amount of duty of excise and interest, any, paid on such duty as determined by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise under the foregoing provisions of this sub-section shall, instead of being credited to the Fund, be paid to the applicant; if such amount is relatable to - (a) rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India; (b) unspent advance deposits lying in b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioners of Excise in the filed would put on additional burden of Rs. 12 Crores for the project." This letter addressed to Finance Secretary clearly lays down that the burden of duty that was sought to be levied ion absence of exemption order or correct interpretation of exemption order will lead to additional burden of Rs. 12 Crores on the project, which has been accepted by the government as strategic project of national importance, to improve transport infrastructure along the west coast, improvement of employment opportunities, reduction of rail distance between some of the states on the West Coast and consequent saving in the fuel. 11.3 These facts clearly point that the burden of duty claimed as refund has been borne by the appellant and could not have been passed on to the anyone else. The bar of unjust enrichment as in Section 11B is not a absolute bar but a rebuttable presumption. None of the decisions cited by the revenue state that refund should not be granted in view of bar of unjust enrichment but lay down that before a refund is allowed the claimant should show that the burden of the duty paid has been borne by himself. 11.4 In case of Addison Company [2016 (33....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Corporation that refund could not be given because there was a possibility of undue enrichment of the claimant. This Court did not accept this contention and came to the conclusion that octroi was a duty on the entry of raw material which was payable by the producer or manufacturer. It was not the duty on going out of the finished products in respect of which the duty might have been charged or added to the costs passed on to the consumers. This Court then concluded that "in such a situation, no question of undue enrichment' can possibly arise in this case". This decision is thus clearly not applicable in the present case where the question of unjust enrichment does arise. 23. In State of Rajasthan and Others v. Hindustan Copper Limited (1998) 9 SCC 708, this Court accepted the averment made in the affidavit on behalf of the assessee to the effect that the excess duty paid on rectified spirit, in respect of which refund was claimed, had not been passed on to any consumer of the final product. It is in view of this that this Court held that the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply. Lastly, our attention was drawn to the case of Bhadrachalam Papaperboards Ltd. v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the Half Year ended 30.09.2017. On the basis of the said documents he submitted that appellants have capitalized the said amount in the books of account and thus argued that they had passed on the burden of duty. In Schedule 7 - Current Assets, Loans & Advances, in the Annual Report of 2006-07 the amounts shown as deposit with Government authority/ judiciary as on 31.03.2007, is Rs. 123,301,889/- and as on 31.03.2006 is Rs. 104,079,380/- and as per Annual Report of 2007-08 the same is Rs. 151,252,407/-. From the above statements we are unable to appreciate the submissions made by the Authorized Representative. When the amounts are shown as deposits with the Government under the head Loans and Advances, appellants themselves are treating the amount indicated therein as amount due from the government, then how can it be concluded that the burden of the said amounts have been passed on. 11.8 In our view appellants have sufficiently discharged the burden cast on them as buyer/ consumers of these goods, to show that they have borne the incidence of duty paid by them, and hence the bar of unjust enrichment would not be applicable in respect of the refund claims filed. 12.1 Depart....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shri Kumar, Regarding Sub: Construction of Konkan Railway Line exemption of excise duty for the manufacture of concrete sleepers importance attached to the Keeping in view the national aforementioned project and in order to reduce the cost of the project, the Central Govt. u/s 5 A-2 of the Central excise duty of exemption manufactured for and quantity the Excise on the The Act and Salt Act permitind purpose. concrete sleepers provides exemption of goods for specific purpose without any However, the preliminary Restriction on quantity and cost. cost which Was made Information regarding available by Konkan Railway Corporation (KRC) at the time of indicated in the Notification seeking exemption in 1990 was Though, the increased quantity issued April, Dut due 12.86 lakhs to 13.060 #leepers, [com marginally in 60.03 cr. 1994. to Rs. price escalation, the cost of sleepers increased considerably 108.846 crores. from Rs. rad clearly mentioned exemption of sleepers between December, unambiguous provisions - The notification e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... RASHTRAPATI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110004 26th December, 2000 it out 4 M D.O.No.1/126/2-K/00-LC Dear Dr. This relates to a dispute between Konkan Railway Corporation Limited (KRCL) and Deptt. of Revenue (CBEC) regarding ad hoc exemption from levy of excise duty on manufacture of concrete sleepers. As you know, KRCL was given this exemption in 1994 for the construction of the rail line between Mumbai and Mangalore, since it was considered to be project of national importance. The exemption was for the manufacture of 12.86 lakhs sleepers valued at Rs.65.03 crores. As it happens, KRCL was not able to ascertain exactly the number of sleepers required and further during the construction phase the value of the sleepers also increased due to inflation. 2. KRCL had represented to the Deptt. of Revenue in August, 1997 to suitably modify the exemption notification clarifying that the ad hoc exemption should not apply to the quantity of sleepers or to their value. This representation was the result of the excise authorities insisting that the exemption applied to both the number and their value read together, KRCL's representatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation presumably indicated certain quantities. technical dificulties of the project it was perhaps, not possible to strictly Prima-facie. adhere to the quantities mentioned in the said Notification. therefore, a case could, perhaps, be made to relax the ad hoc exemption given, unless of course the project exceeded the original exemption by a very substantial margin. In any case, this is a matter on which a view is required to be taken by the Deptt. of Revenue. In view of the directions of the High Court and the earlier decision of COD, it is requested that you may like to have a discussion with Railway Board and other concerned authorities to resolve the problem at an early date. Should you feel that the time available for the purpose is short, you may like to approach the Delhi High Court for a suitable extension of time. With regards. Dr. S. Narayan, Secretary (Revenue) North Block. NEW DELHI Yours sincerely, 24 (Dipankar Basu) Document 4 To Six, F.No. 390/P/242/2000-JC Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue New Delhii, the 3rd May, 2002 The Additional Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The intended benefit of this project is to improve transport infrastructure along the West Coast, improvement of employment opportunities, reduction of rail distance between same of the states on the West. Coast and consequentially saving in fuel. Corporation has requested for exemption from payment of duty under The Konkan Railway Section 5A(2) of Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 for concrete sleepers required to be used for railway lines. The Konkan Railway Corporation has entered into contract with four factories along the route of this line for manufacture and supply of prestressed concrete sleepers. 2. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 2 of Section 5A of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944, and in supersession of Adhoc Exemption Order No. 2/2/94 -CX dated 4.4.94, the Central Government, having regard to the strategic importance of the Konkan Railway Line, and being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts manufactured and supplied during the period December, 1990 prestressed concrete sleepers onwards; by the following ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecember, 1990 to 31-3-1995. Pvt. In terms of our Contract with M/s Prestress (India)/Ltd., we have reimbused paid to M/s Presstress (India) Ltd. the same amount of Excise duty i.e. Rs. 3,04,47528.78/- The Contractor: M/s Prestress (India) Pvt.Ltd. have already filed a Refund Claim to your office, vide their letter No.EIPC/54/ 94/94-95 dt. 27-7-94, amounting to Rs. 3,04,47,528.78. They have also furnished undertaking that the amount in question shall be refunded to Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, Ratnagiri. We also enclose herewith a claim for the refund of Central Excise duty paid by us; on the same lines giving full details of refund as under :- 1. Form-R for refund claim of Rs.3,04,47,528.78 2. T.R-6 challans bearing Sl. No.2 to 20 ... ... 19 copies with 3. 4. Annexure I. G.P. from 1992 to 1994 74 copies with Annexure II. P.L.A. from 1992 to 1994 - from folio No.01 to 22 with Annexure:II Under the circumstances, we would request that both the appli- cations may be considered and disposed of jointly. Thanking you, FALCAO Encl: As above. Yours faithfully, 4 of Chief En....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rporation, from payment of the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. (Annexture "A" is the copy the exemption notification dt. 2/5/2002) MA of This Corporation had paid through the manufacturer the Duty on sleeper supplied prior to Adhoc exemption order dt. ( Annexture the 4/4/94. 4/4/94). "B" is the copy of the adhoc notification dt. The total amount paid through PLA and RG 23 is RS. 1, 78, 53, 895/- out of which Rs.87, 78,584/- is paid through PLA and RS. 90, 75, 311/- "hrough RG 23. such as partly This Corporation and the manufacturer of the sleepers M/s. Isco Track Sleeper pvt ltd, after issuance of Adhoc exemption 4/4/1994, order dt. had filed the refund application, in the year 1994, alongwith the documentry proof of the payment of the duty GPIs, invoice, and Challans. The said refund application was allowed and by the order dt. 22/09/95, an amount of Rs. 2,34,937/- sanctioned and refunded to this Corporation. The balance Duty amount of Rs. 85,43.647 /- is rejected, on the ground that the said application has been filed beyond the limitation i.e not fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds mentioned here under :- Full exemption 3.55.298 Nos. supplied by from payment of whole of the Central Excise duty on of prestressed concrete sleepers manufactured and M/s. Prestress (India) Pvt. Ltd, Chiplun, value of which is Rs. 33, 15, 31, 890, granted by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Revenue) vide adhoc exemption order No. 83/3/2002 dt. 2/5/2002 under letter No. F. No. 134/8/2000-cx. 4 and in supersession of Adhoc Exemption order No. 2/2/94-CX dated 4th April 1994 amended by the letter of even no. dated 24th May, (Copies enclosed for ready reference) 2. We enclose the following documents in support of the claim. (i) T. R. 6 challans from No. 1 to 8 of 93-94 & Ch. No. 94-95 for the proof of deposit of Rs. 3,50,34,644/- (Rs. 30447528.74 + 4587116) (ii) P.L.A. 1994 1 of of sheets from No. 1 to 11 for the proof of payment Excise Duty by way of debit from the deposits made vide T. R. 6 challans referred to above at Sr. No. 2(i). (An abstract statement also enclosed as Annexure - I) As per Abstract statement, a) Total duty paid through P.L.A. is Rs. 1,32,43,032.19 b) Duty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the of Total duty paid through RG23-A Part II is Rs. 1,72,04,496.55 iv) Zerox copies of G. P. 1 No 1 dated 6.4.93 to G. P. 1 No. 291, dated 29.394 (total 292 Gate passes) and Invoice No. 1 dated 6.4.94 (An Abstract statement also enclosed as Annexure - III). Document 15 WE CARE FORM - R Application for refund of excise duty To, The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division - Ratnagiri, Collectorate 1. We claim refund of Rs. (Rule 173 S) 87,78,584 (Rupees Eighty Seven Lakhs seventy Eight Thousand Five Hundred & Eighty Four only) on the grounds mentioned here under :- auty on value Ministry and of No. Full exemption from payment of whole of the Central Excise 3,21,686 Nos. of sleepers manufactured prestressed concrete supplied by M/s. ISCO Track Sleepers Pvt. Ltd, at Kudal, which is Rs. 24, 77, 66, 556/- granted by the Govt. of India, of Finance (Deptt. of Revenue) vide adhoc exemption order 83/3/2002 dt. 2/5/2002 under letter No. F. No. 134/8/2000-cx. 4 and of 2/2/94-CX dated 4th in supersession Adhoc Exemption order No. 1994 dated 24th April ....