M/S.Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/942231
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnOct-29-2009
Case NumberAppeal No.E/64 of 2003
Judge THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. P.K. DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AppellantM/S.Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd.
RespondentCommissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Advocates:Shri A.R. Sreenivasan, DGM. Shri C. Dhanasekaran, SDR
Excerpt:
per dr. chittaranjan satapathy heard both sides. shri a.r. sreenivasan, dgm of the appellant-company states that, in this case, the appellants removed the impugned machinery on 16.09.2000 for the purpose of exhibition. at that stage, the duty benefit under notification no.215/84-ce dated 09.11.1984 could not be taken as the necessary certificate was not available with the appellants at that time, which was received late. however, he pleads that all conditions of the notifications are satisfied in the appellant s case except that duty was paid in stead of giving a bond. subsequently, the impugned machinery was brought back to the factory on 22.12.2000 and later on, the same has been cleared to a 100% eou against ct-3 certificate without payment of duty on 21.01.2001. the refund claim for the original amount of duty paid has been filed on 03.02.2001 which has been rejected by both the authorities below leading to this appeal. 2. heard the learned sdr shri c. dhanasekaran who supports the impugned order. 3. from the impugned order, we find that the authorities below have invoked the provisions of rule 51a, 173h and 173l to deny the refund claim to the appellants. however, we find that the case of the appellants is a genuine one and they were eligible to the exemption under notification no.215/84-ce which they could not avail on account of delayed receipt of necessary certificate. as such, we are of the view that the appellant s case should be examined with reference to the certificate obtained by them and the benefit of notification no.215/84-ce should be allowed with consequential refund of the duty originally paid. 4. for the above said purpose, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority in the above terms. the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
Judgment:

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy

Heard both sides. Shri A.R. Sreenivasan, DGM of the appellant-company states that, in this case, the appellants removed the impugned machinery on 16.09.2000 for the purpose of exhibition. At that stage, the duty benefit under Notification No.215/84-CE dated 09.11.1984 could not be taken as the necessary certificate was not available with the appellants at that time, which was received late. However, he pleads that all conditions of the notifications are satisfied in the appellant s case except that duty was paid in stead of giving a bond. Subsequently, the impugned machinery was brought back to the factory on 22.12.2000 and later on, the same has been cleared to a 100% EOU against CT-3 certificate without payment of duty on 21.01.2001. The refund claim for the original amount of duty paid has been filed on 03.02.2001 which has been rejected by both the authorities below leading to this appeal.

2. Heard the learned SDR Shri C. Dhanasekaran who supports the impugned order.

3. From the impugned order, we find that the authorities below have invoked the provisions of Rule 51A, 173H and 173L to deny the refund claim to the appellants. However, we find that the case of the appellants is a genuine one and they were eligible to the exemption under Notification No.215/84-CE which they could not avail on account of delayed receipt of necessary certificate. As such, we are of the view that the appellant s case should be examined with reference to the certificate obtained by them and the benefit of Notification No.215/84-CE should be allowed with consequential refund of the duty originally paid.

4. For the above said purpose, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority in the above terms. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.