TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the appeal filed by the Assessee and allowed the refund claim of Assessee in terms of the direction of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5047 of 2000 decided on 20.11.2001 in the case of other similarly situated Assessee, M/s.Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Ltd. The learned Tribunal made its order subject to the decision of the writ appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present Appeal in nut shell are as under: The Respondent/Assessee, manufacturing polybutane falling under Chapter 3902.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, received polybutane enriched LPG (known as feed stock) which is their main raw material for the manufacture of polybutane from M/s.Madras Refineries Ltd., (MRL). The e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and after the extraction of polybutene chemical, the remnant LPG gas was returned back to MRL through another pipeline. Finally, it appears that the Industry prevailed over the Central Government and the said exemption was restored vide Notification No.116/94-CE dated 24th June 1994. 3. In the period between these two Notifications, 01.03.1994 to 23.06.1994, the supplier MRL paid the excise duty on entire supply of LPG and recovered the same from the Respondent/Assessee and other similar manufacturers of polybutene. The burden of such excise duty was borne by the Respondent/Assessee for this period. Upon the exemption being restored, the Assessees applied for the refund of the excise duty paid and borne by them for this interim period from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the present Respondent/Assessee, invoking the period of limitation of six months prescribed under Section 11B of the Act on the basis of the Assessee specific Notification issued by the Government of India on 24th March 1995 under Section 5A(2) of the Act. In the said Notification, specially issued in the case of KSCL vide paragraph 8 thereof, while holding that the Assessee was entitled to the refund of the excise duty paid and borne by it for the disputed period between 01.03.1994 to 23.06.1994, was entitled to refund of the same but the refund would be admissible only subject to provisions of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which provides for a period of six months for ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise duty for the entire period between 01.03.1994 to 23.06.1994. He also submitted that even the present Assessee had been making representations and protests against the revocation of the exemption to the concerned authorities along with others and therefore, the duty paid by the Assessee for the said period will be deemed to be paid under protest in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Limited vs Collector of Central Excise, (1989 (41) E.L.T 358 (SC)). The relevant paragraph of which was quoted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited. He submitted that for the short period for which the exemption to the extent of unconsumed and returned quantit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od, the exemption was revoked by the Central Government, which upon representations and protests of the various such Industries including the Respondent/Assessee before us stood finally restored on 24th June 1994 and a specific Notification was later on issued under Section 5A(2) of the Act for the Respondent/Assessee on 24th March 1995 also. 7. It is true that paragraph 8 of the said specific Notification under section 5A(2) of the Act stipulates that the amount of the refund as found admissible, would be subject to the provisions of the Section 11B of the Act but we do not find the same provision could be invoked an applied by the Revenue in identical circumstances to the other Assessee, M/s.Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited. 8. Once the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om that of the other Assessee, M/s.Tamilnadu Petroproducts Ltd., who succeeded in getting the refund of the entire period from 01.03.1994 to 23.06.1994. 9. The eligibility of the Respondent/Assessee in the present case to get such refund is also not disputed and a part of the excise duty for the said period has also been made to the Respondent/Assessee in the present case also and therefore, for the limited short period from 01.03.1994 till 15.05.1994, we do not think that the Assessee deserves to be denied the said refund, merely because he chose to file its application for refund on 16.11.1994. We hold this opinion because the present Assessee has also paid the said excise duty for the aforesaid period under protest and the Second provis....