TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty in excess of 25%. The said claim was initially rejected by the Lower Authorities on account of being time barred but eventually allowed by this Tribunal vide Final Order dated 9 July 2018by following the decision dated20 February 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Courtin the case ofVernerpur Tea Estate &Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong in Central Excise Appeal No. 11/2016. The said Final Order dated 9 July 2018 was accepted by revenue and accordingly the refunds were sanctioned by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide Order dated 26 April 2019. The Appellants thereafter filed a claim for interest on 2 August 2019 under Section 11BB of the Act, in view of the delay of more than 10 years in the grant of refund drawing support from the decision of the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Amalgamated Plantations Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2013 (296) ELT 13 and Order passed in the review petition, reported in 2016 (340) ELT 310. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the original authority rejected the Appellants claim for interest on the ground that the refund was sanctioned within a period of three months from the date of resubmission of the Appellants cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....always entitled to exemption/refund from the date on which the original application claiming exemption/refund was made i.e. 1 January 2008. (iv) The observation of the Ld. Appellate Commissioner that the Appellants eligibility for refund was legally decided only on 9 July 2018 and consequently, intervening period of dispute that is from 8 January 2008 to 9 July 2018 did not confer any right on the Appellants to claim interest is contrary to explanation to Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, as also to the settled legal position that judicial decisions always acts retrospectively unless the doctrine of prospective overruling is applied as held in the case of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. reported in 2008 (230) ELT 385 (para 42 to 44). 4. The learned Authorized Representative for the Respondent supports and reiterates the findings of the learned Appellate Commissioner in the OIA's. It is also contended on behalf of the revenue that there is a conflict between the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Vernerpur Tea Estate case relied upon by the Appellants for claiming refund in the first round of litigation visà- vis the decision in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al expansion and the payment of duty in cash, which are the substantive conditions and the fulfillment of these conditions creates theentitlement to refund under Notification No. 33/1999 in favour of the Appellant. It is true that the Appellants entitlement to exemption/refund was finally decided on 26 April 2019 but it is equally settled that judicial decision acts retrospectively as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. at para 42 reproduced below: "In our judgment, it is also well-settled that a juridical decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a 'new rule' but to maintain and expound the 'old one'. In other words, Judges do not make law, they only discover or find the correct law. The law has always been the same. If a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, it (the later decision) does not make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an earlier decision of the Court operated for quite some time, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quipments for the pre and the post expansion periods duly certified by a Chartered Engineer showing the substantial expansions made. The claims of the refund by the petitioners were objected to by the department by issuing a show-cause Notice dated:- 12.01.2010. The petitioners replied to the show-cause by its reply dated:- 28.06.2010. However, the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, Dibrugarh vide order dated:- 09.07.2010 disallowed the claims of refund of the petitioners in respect of the petitioner no.2 amounting to Rs. 39,33,061/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Sixty One only) holding the same to be time barred. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed (Appeals) before the Commissioner Central Excise, Customs and Service tax (Appeals) at Guwahati. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated:- 24.12.2012 allowed the appeals of the petitioners and held that it would be unfair to reject the claim of refund submitted by the petitioners on the grounds of delay. Against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue preferred a further appeal before the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, in Kolkata (CESTAT). The CESTAT by co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be permitted. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that non-following of procedural requirement cannot deny the substantive benefit, otherwise available to the assessee. Also exemptions made with a beneficient object like growth of Industry in a Region have to be liberally construed and a narrow construction of the Notification which defeats the object cannot be accepted. For these reasons, we conclude that the 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." 7. That after, the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court, the Assistant Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax vide order-in-Original No. 15/REF/DIV/DIB/ACD/18-19 dated 11.07.2018 held that the petitioners to be eligible for the refund of Central Excise duty and sanctioned the refund amount of Rs. 39,33,061/- (Rupees Thirty ....