TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a Tea factory situated in North Laximpur, Assam. The appellant sought the benefit of Area Based Exemption in terms of Notification No. 33/99 dated-8/7/1999. The benefit was claimed on the ground that the installed capacity for the manufacture of tea in the factory was increased by more than 25% by way of substantial expansion since 24/12/1997. 3. The appellant claimed benefit of the Notification by filing the first refund claim with the Department on 18/03/2008. The claim covered the period from July, 1999 to March, 2003. The original authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Itanagar Division, rejected the claim regarding the purchase of Kilburn model Dryer by way of substantial expansion. Though the bill is said to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed by the lower authorities. He highlighted the discrepancies referred to by the original authority regarding the number of machines in the Withering Section and Drying Section as follows : Sl. No. Section Pre-expansion Post expansion As per Assessment of Installed Capacity Report As per Ground Plan As per Assessment of Installed Capacity Report As per Ground Plan 1. Withering Section (No. of Troughs 16 12 16 12 2. Drying Section (No. of Dryers) 3 3 4 5 3. Broiling & Rotorvane Section (Rolling Table) 10 11 10 12 He also reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that even if the time limit under Section 11B is not applicable, it should have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reproduced below: "....9. 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 25% on or before 24th day of December, 1997 and then file every month's statement of duty paid from the account current to the Assistant Commissioner. And, if these two conditions were fulfilled, the appellant was entitled to refund of the amount of duty paid. It is not in dispute that the Industrial Unit has undertaken increase by more than 25%. Clause 2 (a) of the Notification only says that the manufacturer shall submit a statement of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses viz. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vinay Cement Ltd., 2002 (147) E.L.T. 74; Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Napuk Tea Estate-2007 (219) E.L.T. 178 and Dhunseri Tea Estate Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise-2011 (274) E.L.T. 590has held that statements of duty paid submitted in RT-12 returns amounts to full compliance of Clause 2 (a) of the Notification and refund of duty paid cannot be denied for want of separate statement of such duty paid. A long standing decision adopting a particular construction which may have been acted upon by persons in the general conduct of affairs may not be departed from on the doctrine of stare decisis. 10. With these findings, we answer all the substantial questions of law in favour of the....