2024 (9) TMI 768

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... rejection of refund in the Order-in-Original dated 07.03.2012 passed by Ld. Asst. Commissioner, with respect to the self-credit of Rs. 10,27,377/- taken by the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged inter alia in the manufacture of cosmetics and Vaseline classifiable under Chapter 33 and 27 respectively of first schedule to the CETA in their factory located at Tinsukia, Assam. The appellant has been availing the benefit of Notification No.20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 providing exemption for the goods manufactured and cleared from factories/units located in North Eastern States including Assam. The said Notification provides for refund of duty paid from PLA (account current). 2.1. Paragraph 2A of the Notifica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant under the option available at Paragraph 2D of the said Notification. 2.4 In the meanwhile, a dispute arose regarding the method of valuation of shampoos in pouches/sachets less than 10ml. The Department, vide letters dated 10.08.2011/25.08.2011, insisted on payment of duty on MRP basis i.e. MRP less abatement under Section 4A for the months from August 2011 to December 2011. In response to Department's letter dated 10.08.2011/25.08.2011, Appellant, vide letter dated 12.12.2011, without prejudice to their contention that valuation under Section 4 is correct, agreed to pay duty on MRP under section 4A and informed that the payments under Section 4A along with the differential duty for the period August 2011 to December 2011, wou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jected the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that refund in the form of self-credit cannot be allowed in view of duty paid on clearances made for earlier months i.e. August 2011 to December 2011, in violation of paragraph 2A of the said Notification. Hence, the appellant filed this appeal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2014. 3. The appellant submits that they have fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under Notification No. 20/2007-CE, as amended by Notification No. 20/2008-CE, and hence, the impugned order not allowing refund of self-credit claimed to the extent of 56% of the said differential duty paid, of Rs. 10,27,377/-, is legally not tenable. The appellant submits that there is no bar in the notification....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d of self-credit claimed by the appellant to the extent of 56% of the said differential duty paid, amounting to Rs. 10,27,377/-, based on the observation that the appellant have not complied with Paragraph 2A of the said Notification. On perusal of the Paragraph 2A of the said Notification, we observe that there is no such restriction in the Paragraph 2A that self-credit of duty paid on earlier month cannot be availed along with the duty paid in the subsequent month. As per the Notification, an assessee can take self-credit of the duty paid in the previous month by 7th day of the succeeding month. In the present case, as directed by the Department, the appellant paid the duty for the months of August 2011 to December 2011 in the month of Ja....