Page 189 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] TRIBENI METALLOYS PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., GUWAHATI 627

9. Accordingly, an eligibility order dated 31-1-2003 was issued in fa-
vour of the appellant by which it was provided that the appellant is entitled to an
exemption of excise duty by way of refund for a period not exceeding ten years
with effect from 12-2-2002.
10. The appellant continued to receive the benefit of exemption upto
18-7-2009 but thereafter, the authorities by appropriate orders had refused the
benefit. The stand of the authorities justifying the refusal to the exemption was
that under the notification of 18-7-2009, the benefit is for a period of ten years
from the date of the notification and hence, further exemption cannot be given
after expiry of the period of ten years from the said notification. The Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati by his orders rejected the claim of the
appellant for exemption of excise duties for the periods subsequent to 8-7-2009.
11. The appellant assailed the said decision of the respondent authori-
ties before the Commissioner of Appeals. The Commissioner of Appeals by the
order dated 27-8-2013 had held that the claim of the appellant that they were
granted exemption for a period of 10 (ten) years w.e.f. 12-2-2002 as per the eligi-
bility order dated 31-1-2003 is without any legal basis and every monthly order
of exemption is an independent order and there is no provision for an one-time
exemption of 10 (ten) years.
12. Being aggrieved, the appellant assailed the said decision of the
Commissioner of Appeals before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench at Kolkata (in short CESTAT). In the appeal, the
eligibility order dated 31-1-2003, wherein, it is provided that they are entitled to
the exemption for a period of ten years with effect from 12-2-2002 was referred
and accordingly contended that in terms thereof, they are entitled to the exemp-
tion upto 12-2-2012.
13. By the judgment and order dated 31-8-2016 [2017 (348) E.L.T. 572
(Tri.-Kol.)] the CESTAT, Kolkata arrived at a conclusion that under clause 4 of
the notification of 8-7-1999, the period of ten years has to be calculated from the
date of publication of the said notification or from the date of commencement of
commercial production, whichever is later and that there is no provision in the
subsequent notification of 12-2-2002 that the period of ten years has to be count-
ed from the date of the said notification. The CESTAT, Kolkata accordingly, ar-
rived at a conclusion that the rule of strict interpretation would apply in inter-
preting the benefits granted by the exemption notification and in the absence of
any such provision in the notification. The contention of the appellant that the
period of exemption should be counted from 12-2-2002 cannot be accepted.
14. With reference to the provision of the eligibility order dated
31-1-2003 that the exemption would be for a period of ten years with effect from
12-2-2002, the CESTAT, Kolkata referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in
Grasim Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bhopal [2011 (271) E.L.T. 164 (S.C.)] wherein, it
was held that it is permissible for the competent authority to issue notice for re-
covery of any excise duty which was erroneously refunded and accordingly con-
cludes that the said ratio would squarely be applicable to the refunds sanction
under the notification dated 8-7-1999. Upon such conclusion the CESTAT, Kolka-
ta upheld the order dated 27-8-2013 of the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein, it
was held that the eligibility order dated 31-1-2003 providing for exemption for a
period of ten years from 12-2-2002 is without any basis.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  189