LAWS(MEGH)-2021-9-9

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS & SERVICES TAX, SHILLONG Vs. ISHAAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.

Decided On September 23, 2021
Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax, Shillong Appellant
V/S
Ishaan Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the Revenue/Appellant under sec. 35G of the Central Excise Act against the judgment and order dtd. 18/12/2019 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (CESTAT) in Appeal No. E/76154/2014, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent against the common adjudication order dtd. 31/3/2014 and corrigendum dtd. 5/5/2014 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, was allowed.

(2.) The necessary facts, in brief, are that a certain notification, being notification No. 32/99-CE, dtd. 8/7/1999, had been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, wherein it was proposed to exempt goods specified in the First and Second Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, from payment of Excise duty from units located in North East India, as specified in the annexure to the said notification. This scheme provided for refund of the duty of excise or additional duty of excise leviable thereon as equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer, other than the amount of duty paid by Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The respondent, which reportedly manufactured excisable goods at its factory situated at Byrnihat, Meghalaya, during the period March, 2002 to November, 2004, was, therefore, found to be eligible for benefits under the said notification.

(3.) It appears that thereafter, pursuant to a search and seizure operation and subsequent investigation conducted by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), it was alleged that the respondent had misused the exemption notification No. 32/99-CE, dtd. 8/7/1999 and wrongly availed refunds amounting to Rs.9,45,67,825.00 during the period from October, 2002 to December, 2004, for the clearances of finished goods, claimed to have been manufactured by the respondent Unit during the period March 2002 to November 2004. It was further alleged that the respondent had also availed of irregular Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.53,05,582.00. A show cause notice dtd. 28/2/2006, was then issued by the Additional DG, DGCEI, Kolkata, to the respondent and the charges levelled were, inter alia, as follows: