AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1861
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - Appeal Number E-75162-2024 E-75163-2024 E-75164-2024 Period February 2016 to June 2016 February 2017 to May 2017 July 2016 to January 2017 Amount Involved / Refund Rejected Rs. 20,54,22,149/- Rs. 12,68,44,992/- Rs. 31,10,28,056/- Rs. 64,32,95,197/- SCN V(18)02/Refund/CE/Sun-754/GTK.DIVN/16-17/3184 dated 05.08.2016 V(18)58/CE/Refund/Sun-754/GTK.DIVN/2016-17/658 dated 15.09.2017 V(18)58/CE/Refund/Sun-754/GTK.DIVN/2016-17/605 dated 20.02.2017 OIO 41-43/Adj/CE/Refund/Sun Pharma/Gtk-Div/2022-23 dated 12.07.2022 41-43/Adj/CE/Refund/Sun Pharma/Gtk-Div/2022-23 dated 12.07.2022 41-43/Adj/CE/Refund/Sun Pharma/Gtk-Div/2022-23 dated 12.07.2022 OIA 74-76/SLG-CE/2023-24 dated 25.10.2023 74-76/SLG-CE/2023-24 dated 25.10.2023 74-76/SLG-CE/2023-24 dated 25.10.2023 Issue Whether refund filed under Notification 56/2003-CE, but otherwise fully eligible under Notification 20/2007-CE, can be rejected solely on the ground that the wrong Notification number was mentioned in the refund application inadvertently. Refund Claim Details Refund claims were fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....credit, the appellant has started claiming the exemption benefit by filing refund claims for each month. Accordingly, the appellant filed refund claims for the period from March, 2014 to January, 2016, claiming 100% of the duty paid in PLA. However, inadvertently the appellant has filed all these claims in terms of the Notification No.56/2003, instead of Notification No.20/2007. The submission advanced by the appellant to this effect is that the conditions imposed and benefits available under both the above said Notifications are same and identical and hence inadvertent mentioning of Notification No. 56/2003-CE instead of Notification No. 20/2007-CE, would not disentitle them the benefit of exemption which is otherwise available to them under the Notification 20/2007-CE. A comparative chart showing the conditions imposed and benefits available under both the above said Notifications are extracted below:- Notification: 56/2003-C.E. dated 25-Jun-2003 Notification. No. 20/2007-CE dated 25-April-2007 Para 1 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en substantial expansion by way of increase by not less than 25% in the value of fixed capital investment in plant and machinery for the purposes of expansion of capacity/modernization and diversification and have commenced commercial production from such expanded capacity on or after the 1st day of April, 2007 but not later than 31st day of March, 2017. Para -2 -Table Para -2 -Table SS Chapter of the First Schedule Description of goods Rate Description of inputs for manufacture of Description of inputs for manufacture of goods in column (3) 2 30 All goods 56 Any goods S. No. Chapter of the First Schedule Description of goods Rate Description of inputs for manufacture of Description of inputs for manufacture of goods in column (3) 2 30 All goods 56 Any goods 10.1. From the aforesaid table, it is seen that the conditions imposed and benefits available under both the Notifications are same and identical, which shows that the intention of the Government behind issuance of both Notifications for granting the benefits to the Industrial Units is also same. The only difference ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inadvertent mentioning of Notification No. 56/2003-CE instead of Notification No. 20/2007-CE. As the appellant had duly complied with all the relevant provisions of the Notification No. 20/2007-CE, we hold that the inadvertent error in wrong mentioning of the Notification No. 56/2003 would not disentitle them from availing the benefit of Notification No. 20/2007 which is otherwise entitled to them. 10.4. We also find that the said issue has already been laid to rest in a catena of decisions rendered by various judicial fora. The same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Share Medical Care Versus Union of India [2007 (209) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)], wherein it has been held that even if an applicant does not claim benefit under a particular notification at the initial stage, he is not debarred, prohibited or estopped from claiming such benefit at a later stage. The relevant part of the said decision is reproduced below for ready reference: "15. From the above decisions, it is clear that even if an applicant does not claim benefit under a particular notification at the initial stage, he is not debarred, prohibited or estopped from claiming su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applicant does not claim benefit under a particular Notification at initial stage, he is not debarred, provided or stopped from claiming such benefit at a later stage. Accordingly, we find that the show cause notice is unsustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and the appellant shall be entitled for consequential benefit in accordance with law." 10.6. A similar issue has also been decided by the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Commissioner of Cus. & C.Ex., Meerut-II v. Packaging India (Pvt.) Ltd. [2012 (285) E.L.T. 497 (Uttarakhand)]. The relevant observation made by the Hon'ble High Court reads thus: - "2. The genuineness of the contention that the declaration under Notification No. 49 was filed by mistake was not questioned at any point of time. A look at Notification No. 49 will show that the goods dealt with by the assessee were not covered by said Notification, but the goods dealt with by the assessee were covered by Notification No. 50. By submitting a declaration, as was submitted, the assessee was entitled to the benefits of Notification No. 50. The assessee submitted such a declaration, but ....