Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Jaipur-I vs M/S. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd on 27 May, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI COURT II EXCISE APPEAL NO. 1960/06-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 149(HKS)CE/JPR-II/2006 dated 17.03.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Excise, Jaipur] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? CCE, Jaipur-I Appellant Vs. M/s. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. Respondents
Appearance:
Shri B.S. Suhag, Departmental Representative, for the Revenue, Shri S. Vasudevan, Advocate for the respondents Coram:
Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Date of Hearing: 27th May, 2008 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per S.S. Kang:
Heard both sides.
2. Revenue filed this appeal against impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) after following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Amrutanjan Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai, reported in 2001 (128) ELT 244 (Tri.-Chennai) had held that second refund application in the same month is permissible and the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to ascertain whether the said amount of refund claim unutilized during the period.
3. Only contention of the appellant is that as per condition No. 2 of Notification No. 11/2002 dated 1.3.2002 whereby procedure for availing refund of CENVAT Credit in respect of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product which are cleared for export is prescribed the claim of such refund can be submitted nor more than once in each calendar month.
4. I find that there is no dispute regarding admissibility of refund. Revenues case is only that the procedure prescribed for refund under notification which allows only one refund claim during a calendar month is not followed. I find this issue is now settled by the Tribunal in the following cases:-
a) Amrutanjan Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai, reported in 2001 (128) ELT 244 (Tri.-Chennai);
b) Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore, reported in 1998 (102 ) ELT 33 (Tribunal)
c) CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Balkrishna Textiles Ltd. , reported in 2005 (192) ELT 912 (Tri.-Mumbai) In the above cases the Tribunal held that condition of notification in respect of availing refund claim in each calendar month is procedural requirement and not effect the substantial right of refund. In view of the above decisions I find no infirmity in the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (S.S. KANG) VICE PRESIDENT Dated 29th May, 2008-05-29 RK