TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I has dealt with challenges to the four adjudication orders together. The first of the disputes, arising from two notices proposing recovery of Rs. 42,81,112 for April-July 2005 and of Rs. 32,32,131 for August-October 2005, concerns taking of credit of duty paid on inputs precluding entitlement to the benefit of notification no. 30/2004-CE dated 9th July 2004. Another dispute, arising from notice proposing recovery of Rs. 22,07,315 for the period from September 2008 to February 2009, pertains to entitlement to notification no. 30/2004-CE dated 9th July 2009 which was sought to be interpreted as intended only for assessees who lacked specified facility which to the appellant could not claim. The t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence of a time period prior to which no claim can be preferred. Again, the statute does not prescribe a near deadline for filing claims. 'Premature' is, therefore, inexplicable and incomprehensible in the context. Such a description would be apt only if an application has been made before taxes or duties were paid which is plainly an absurdity. It would appear that the two lower authorities chose to attach a status to the refund claim that is not contemplated in the statute. 7. Besides statutory impropriety and fallacious description, a consummation disconnect is also perceptible. The claim having been filed and taken on record, its return can be said to be complete only when its custody is transferred back to the claimant. It is moot whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble is uncontestable. Nevertheless, there is an order and the fallacies therein need to be remedied because we have taken a solemn oath to uphold the laws of the country. The legislative organ of the State has imposed a burden of interest for delays in sanctioning of refund and prescribed a time-frame of three months for processing claims. The impugned order appears to have been conceived as a tool to escape this burden without taking a decision on the refund claim. Such perversion of legislative intent cannot pass unchallenged. 9. The eligibility for refund should have been decided taking into consideration the taxability of the service and the procedures laid down in law relating to tax collection and refund. The form and substance of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t a manufacturer who is procuring tow from outside and converting into tops is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Raymond Ltd (supra). The appellants also filed a miscellaneous application in support of their claim that the appellants have no facility in the factory (including plant and equipment) for producing goods of Chapter Heading 5503 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants relied upon the returns filed to the Revenue whereby details of machine and machineries were disclosed and the contention of the appellants is that there are no machine and machineries in the factory for producing the goods of Chapter Heading 5503 of the Tariff. This factual aspect requires verification by the adjudicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d under Heading 55.03/55.04 as 'staple fibres' not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning. However, both these products are covered under Chapter 55 titled as 'man-made staple fibres'. In the General Rules for the interpretation of the First Schedule to the CET, it is stated that the titles to the Chapters are provided for easy reference only. If for easy reference, the 'chapter 55 manmade staple fibres' applies to Tow (55.01/55.02) as well as unprocessed staple fibre (55.03/55.04), then, for the same reason the term 'staple fibre' in the Notification No. 30/04 would apply to 'tow and unprocessed staple fibre' covered under Headings 55.01 to 55.04. In other words, for broad classification purposes if the Legislature has consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bombay supra, is clarificatory and, hence, retrospectively applicable. 5. Learned Authorized Representative disputed the applicability of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in re Raymond Ltd with the submission that the appellant did have the facility for manufacturing of 'staple fibre' and, therefore, ineligible. The claim that 'tow' was also 'staple fibre' was countered with the submission that 'tow' finds fitment within heading 5501 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 while 'staple fibre' is described elsewhere and also by reliance on note 1 of chapter 55 in Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. He averred that the record of investigation has clearly adduced existence of facility for manufacture of '....