2020 (10) TMI 862

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing of tea and is availing the benefit of refund in terms of Notification No. 33/99-CE, dated 08.07.1999, as amended. The subject refund has been denied by the authorities below on the ground that the claim was not filed within a reasonable time. There is no dispute that the appellant is otherwise eligible for refund in as much as they have complied with the condition of having undertaken substantial expansion in the installed capacity by not less than 25% after the prescribed date. The lower authorities while relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Neeldhara Weaving Factory vs. DGFT 2007 (210) ELT 658 (P&H) have declined the refund claim contending that the same should have been filed within a reas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was challenged before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court [2018 (361) ELT 393 (Gau)] wherein the Court allowing the appeal of the assessee observed as below: "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 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. As seen above, the appellant has fully established befor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 claim refund. The Tribunal itself earlier in number of cases viz. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Vinay Cement Ltd., 2002 (147) E.L.T. 724; Commissioner of Central Excise v. Napuk Tea Estate, 2007 (219) E.L.T. 178 and Dhunseri Tea Estate v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2011 (274) E.L.T. 590 has held that statement....