Page 238 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

420 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

therefore the allegation of suppression of fact made on 29 May, 2015 are not sus-
tainable. Therefore, the proceedings are hit by limitation. We therefore hold that
the impugned order is neither sustainable on merits nor sustainable on point of
limitation. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow both the ap-
peals.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 18 June, 2019)
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 420 (Tri. - Chan.)

IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, CHANDIGARH
[COURT NO. I]
S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) and Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T)
SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX,
JAMMU & KASHMIR
Final Order No. 62207/2018, dated 22-3-2018 in Appeal No. E/53579/2014
1
Area Based Exemption in J&K - Refund/Self-credit - Education Cess
(EC) and Higher Education Cess (HEC) - Issue no longer res integra having
been decided by Apex Court judgment in 2017 (355) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) holding
that Education Cess/Higher Education Cess is continuation of Central Excise
duty paid - Further, Notification Nos. 19/2008-C.E. and 34/2008-C.E. which had
placed restrictions on such refund/self-credit have already been set aside by J
& K High Court in 2011 (269) E.L.T. 194 (J&K) - In view of aforesaid, appellant
entitled for refund/self-credit of EC and HEC paid through PLA - Section 11B
of Central Excise Act, 1944. [paras 3, 4, 5]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Biostadt India Limited — Final Order Nos. 61350-61411/2018, dated 14-3-2018 by
CESTAT, Chandigarh — Referred ................................................................................................. [Para 4]
Reckitt Benckiser v. Union of India — 2011 (269) E.L.T. 194 (J & K) — Relied on ............................ [Para 4]
SRD Nutrients Private Limited v. Commissioner — 2017 (355) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) — Relied on ...... [Para 3]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Anoj Chhordia, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Tarun Kumar, AR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - The appellants are in appeal
against the impugned orders wherein the refund claim filed by them under Noti-
fication No. 56/2002-C.E., dated 14-11-2002 has been rejected on two grounds (a)
that the appellants are not entitled to self-credit/refund of education/higher ed-
ucation cess paid by them in terms of Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., dated 14-11-
2002 and, (b) in terms of Notification Nos. 19/2008-C.E., dated 27-3-2008 and
34/2008-C.E., dated 10-6-2008, there are some restrictions for refund/self-credit
to the appellants, instead of self-credit/refund of duty paid through PLA.
________________________________________________________________________
1 In appeal against this order, notice was issued by Supreme Court in 2020 (373) E.L.T.
A93 (S.C.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  238