TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....siness of manufacturing insulated wires and cables, ASCR conductors, copper wires, aluminium wires etc., at its unit located at Sector-3, II E Pant Nagar, Rudrapur, Uttrakhand. 3. The petitioner claims that it is entitled to the budgetary support under the Scheme as it was entitled to Area Based Exemption from Central Excise in terms of the Notification No.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 as amended from time to time (hereafter referred to as 'the Notification'). The petitioner claims that it was entitled to such an exemption from the date of commencement of production at its unit in Rudrapur, Uttarakhand till 01.07.2017, the date when the Notification ceased to apply with the roll out of the Goods and Service Tax regime. In terms of the Scheme, all budgetary support would be available to all eligible units under the erstwhile schemes in terms of the notifications as specified in paragraph 2 of the Scheme. 4. The respondents have denied the budgetary support under the Scheme to the petitioner on the ground that it did not fulfil the criteria of an 'Eligible unit' under the Scheme as it was not availing the Area Based Exemption under the Notification. 5. In view of the above, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y established manufacturing units as available under the Notification. Thereafter, the petitioner commenced commercial production from its unit on 27.03.2010 and informed the concerned Assistant Commissioner of excise of such commencement of production. The petitioner also enclosed copies of the first invoice regarding the first clearance along with its letter dated 28.03.2010. b. There is some controversy with regard to the receipt of the aforementioned intimation. According to respondent no.3, he did not receive the said intimations and therefore, denied the petitioner's exemption under the Notification. This was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 18.05.2010. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, Rampur issued a Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2011, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why it should not be denied the benefit of exemption from payment of Central Excise under the Notification and the excise duty on goods manufactured and cleared by the petitioner during the period of January 2010 to September 2010 not be recovered under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with penalty and interest. c. The petitioner responded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner (Appeals) was rejected by the learned CESTAT by an order dated 07.11.2017. Admittedly, the said order has been accepted and the Revenue has not taken any steps to challenge the same. The show cause notices issued by the authorities after the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an order dated 23.12.2011 being show cause notices dated 05.01.2012, 29.03.2012, 09.07.2012 and 04.10.2012 were dropped. The petitioner also sought refund of Rs.84,79,750/- being the excise duty paid under protest. The petitioner's application for refund was allowed by the learned Joint Commissioner in terms of the order dated 28.04.2022. However, the said amount had been directed to be credited in the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. j. The petitioner has not accepted the said order and has challenged the same to the extent that it directs the refund to be credited in the Consumer Welfare Fund. 11. It is apparent from the above that the controversy whether the petitioner was entitled to avail Area Based Excise Exemption under the Notification is fully resolved. Undisputedly, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Notification.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time, had continued to pursue its right to exemption under the Notification. The petitioner had finally prevailed and was found entitled to the said exemption. The petitioner's application for refund of duty paid under protest was also partly allowed by an order dated 28.04.2022. In terms of the said order, the Joint Commissioner, CGST had sanctioned the refund claim of Rs.84,79,750/- (eighty four lacs seventy nine thousand seven hundred and fifty only) but had directed the same to be credited in the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of Section 11B(2) read with Section 12(C)(2)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The controversy whether the said amount is to be refunded to the petitioner or to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund is a contested one as the petitioner has not accepted the same. However, insofar as the sanction of refund of excise duty is concerned, there is no controversy that the goods cleared by the petitioner from its unit at Rudrapur were exempt from excise duty ab initio by virtue of the Notification. Since the petitioner has also secured an order sanctioning refund of the said duty, there can be no doubt that the petitioner has availed of the benefit under the....