TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....G which came to be allowed by the Commissioner(Appeals). Revenue though contested the claim of the appellants in respect of LPG; they did not get COD Clearance in respect of LPG. The appellants claimed refund of Rs. 25, 31, 02,878, in respect of Solvex-GL for the period October 2000 to November 2007. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Jorhat Division issued show cause notice dated 18.12.2007 proposing rejection of the claim on the ground that Solvex GL did not appear to be covered under Sl.No.13(1) not being gas and also did not appear to cover under any other entries of the schedule to the said show cause notices covering different periods i.e. December 2007 to September 2008, October 2008, November 2008, December 2008, January 2009, February 2009, March 2009 and April 2009 were issued and refund orders R-45/2008-09, R-58/2008-09, R-61/2008-09, R-62/2008-09, R- 70/2008-09, R-76/2008-09, R-80/2008-09, R/91/2008-09, R-3/2009- 10 were issued sanctioning the refunds. Department preferred appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), who has rejected the appeals filed by the department. Now Revenue has filed the below cited appeals in respect of the orders passed by Commissioner(Appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Representative further submits that the Notification particularly giving an exemption should be interpreted strictly; in case of ambiguity the benefit should be given to Revenue and not to the party. He relies upon the following cases:- (a) Commissioner of Customs, Vijayawada Vs. Kimmi Steels Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (368) E.L.T. 92 (Tri.-Hyd.)] Affirmed by Supreme Court as reported in 2019 (368) ELT A 40(SC) (b) Commissioner of Cus. (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company [2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.)] (c) Little Star Foods Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Tax, Hyderabad [2019 (368) E.L.T. 730 (Tri.-Hyd.)] 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that in respect of the first Order i.e. R-55/2008-09, the Review Order was not issued within the time limit. Review was taken up after a period of one year therefore the Review Order is bad in law. He also submits that the merits of the case are also in their favour as observed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). He also points out to the fact that no review order was filed in respect of R-58/2008-09. Therefore it is to be implied that the department has initially accepted the contentions of the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner and normally end at the level of Deputy Commissioner only and on this basis the Commissioner's action cannot be faulted. We find that though the Commissioner may claim that the issue was not brought to his notice by way of proposing a review, it is very difficult to comprehend as to how such a huge refund involving amount of Rs. 25.00 Crores was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner formally or informally. Therefore we do not find merits in the contentions of the appellants that the review could not be completed within the time limit prescribed as the order was not received and that the same could be taken up only after the receipt of duly attested photocopy of the Order-in-Original. In view of the above we hold that the review is undertaken much after the stipulated time limit prescribed therein. 6. Coming to the issue on merits, we find that as observed by the learned Commissioner the matter is essentially technical in nature and reference to the manufacturing process is necessary for a proper appreciation of the issue. We find from records that M/s GAIL submitted that LGP as well as Solvex GL are two inter-mediate gaseous products of processed natural gas stored u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the entry and are eligible for exemption. Going by the manufacturing process given by the respondents and not disputed by the Revenue, we find that Solvex GL is manufactured during the process of production of LPG gas which is subsequently bottled and sold. The plea taken by the department that the exemption is applicable only to gas based products appears to be farfetched; the word 'gas based intermediate products' has to be understood to mean the products or the intermediate products generated during the exploration and production of 'gas based products'. It is not the case of the department that the impugned products i.e. Solvex GL is not produced during the production /manufacture of LPG. Under such circumstances the exemption cannot be restricted to products which are formed in the gaseous stage alone for the reason that the exemption refers to gas based intermediate products and gas exploration and production. The correct interpretation of gas based products would go to include all the products which are produced in the processes of production of gas/LPG. The argument taken by the appellants appears to be farfetched for the reason that even LPG for which the exemption was ex....