M/S LUKWAH TEA ESTATE V. THE COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE AND ANR

C.Ex.App./1/2020

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Lukwah Tea Estate, which appealed against the order of the CESTAT, Kolkata, which had upheld the rejection of their refund claims by the lower authorities. The refund claims were based on an exemption notification (No. 33/99-C.E.) that the appellant argued entitled them to refunds due to a substantial expansion in their manufacturing capacity. The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the exemption notification, the applicability of time limits for claiming refunds, and whether the appellant had adequately informed the relevant authorities about the expansion. The court found that the appellant had not complied with the procedural requirements of the notification, particularly the submission of a specific statement of duty paid, and thus was not entitled to the claimed refunds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691023 (HC-ASSAM NAGALAND MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mokalbari Konai Tea Estate (P) Vs Union of India and Others, Chamong Tea Company Limited (Duflating Tea Estate) Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh, M.K. Jokai Agri Plantations Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax, Vernerpur Tea Estate Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, Dilip Kumar & Co. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs CCE & Service Tax, CIT Vs K. Y. Pilliah & Sons, Patnaik and Co. Ltd Vs CIT
• Laws Referred To: Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S C KEYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P SIKDAR
• Keywords: Central Excise; Exemption Notification; Limitation; Refund claim; Substantial Expansion
• Section: 11B; 35G

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/24 GAHC010035912020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : C.Ex.App./1/2020 M/S LUKWAH TEA ESTATE SHIVSAGAR, P.O. LUKWAH, DIST. SIVSAGAR, ASSAM-785688, REP. BY SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR KHEMKA, WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR, PERMANENT ADDRESS- 862 JESSORE ROAD, LAKE TOWN COMPLEX, BLOCK-1, FLAT NO.4B, KOLKATA-700055. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE AND ANR DIBRUGARH, MILAN NAGAR, (F) LANE, DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE DIVISION JORHAT STATION GODOWN ROAD JORHAT-785001 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N DASGUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CENTRAL EXCISE Page No.# 2/24 BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA For the Appellant : Ms. P. Sikdar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S. C. Keyal, SC, Central Excise Department Date of Hearing : 01.08.2022 Date of Judgment : 8.09.2022 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Soumitra Saikia, J) Heard Ms. P. Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing counsel, Central Excise Department, appearing for the respondents. 2. This an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata. 3. The following questions of law were raised in the appeal by the appellant/assessee. (a) Whether the Order of the Ld Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, dated 18th December, 2019, rejecting the Appellant's exemption claim under the Notification 33/99-CE, dated 08.07.1999, is barred by the Principle of res judicata, as the same issue allowing the exemption benefit to the Appellant has already been decided by this Hon'ble Page No.# 3/24 High Court in the Judgment & Order, dated 26.04.2013 in the Writ Petition No. WP(C) 83/2013? (b) Whether the Ld. Respondent Authorities have committed judicial indiscipline, while continuing revenue litigation, without taking recourse of judicial appeal against the Order of this Hon'ble Court, dated 26.04.2013, if were aggrieved ? (c) Whether the Appellant is entitled to get interest for delayed refund under the exemption scheme in terms of Section11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, considering ‘relevant date’ as the date of passing the Order by this Hon'ble High Court dated 26.04.2013? 4. Subsequently, by way of an affidavit the appellant reformulated the questions of law. This Court by order dated 01.02.2021 admitted the appeal and the following question of law:- (I) Whether it is correct view that RT 12 Returns submitted by the Appellant was not to be considered as Statement for refund under Para 2 of the Exemption Notification No.33/99-CE, contrary to the law declared by this Hon'ble High Court? (II) Whether it is correct view that the expansion mentioned in RT 12 Return and documentary evidences so submitted were not sufficient for claim of exemption, contrary to the law declared by this Hon'ble High Court? (III) Whether non existing ground of limitation under the Exemption Notification No.33/99- CE, was applicable to the case, contrary to the law declared by this Hon'ble High Court? (IV) Whether the Ld Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has erred while Page No.# 4/24 recognizing the direction of this Hon'ble High Court, allowing exemption benefit to the Appellant, but rejecting it in the impugned order? 5. The appellant is a manufacturer of tea including tea waste falling under Chapter- 9 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant is duly registered with the Central Excise Department bearing Registration No. 3/SIB/Package Tea/1998 dated 27.04.1998 for manufacturing of tea including tea waste. 6. Pursuant to the Notification No. 33/99-C.E. dated 08.07.1999 issued by the Union Finance Ministry, granting exemptions to New Industrial Units which commenced the commercial production on after 24.12.1997 and Industrial Units existing before 24.12.1997 but had undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in capital investment by not less than 25% on or before 24.12.1997; the appellant claims to have had undertaken substantial expansion over 25% by way of capital investment. According to the appellant since in terms of the said notification issued by the Union Finance Ministry, the appellant fulfilled the conditions for claiming exemptions, it submitted its claim for the refunds of Central Excise duty paid. The expansion was stated to have been undertaken by increasing the installed capacity during the period from 01.01.1998 to 01.07.1999. The claims for refunds of Central Excise duty paid, were submitted by an application dated 02.01.2008 seeking exemptions from the duty of excise in terms of Notification No. 33/99-C.E. dated 08.07.1999. The application was accompanied by the invoices, Chartered Engineer’s assessment report for installed capacity, Invoices/Challans in respect of the new machinery installed, diagrammatic representation of the machineries before and after Page No.# 5/24 expansion. It was claimed by the assessee/appellant in their application seeking refund that the installed capacity had increased by 37% on 02.07.1999. Since the claim for refund of Central Excise duty paid was submitted after about 9(nine) years from the date of increased capacity, a show cause notice was issued vide show cause notice No. V (18)23/DC/REF/07-08/3501 dated 29.09.2008 by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The appellant replied to the show cause notice by submitting photocopies of the relevant documents and requested for submission of the original at the time of the hearing. At the time of hearing the matter, although two orders of the Commissioner (appeals) were produced, however, the original copies of the relevant document were produced only on 16.12.2009 on the date of personal hearing. However, in spite of repeated requests, the assessee could not produce any documents in support of their claims that they had informed the Range Officer in 2001 about the expansion undertaken by the Assessee. In view of the above, the claim for refund was rejected as being time barred as the same was not filed within a reasonable time. Thereafter, the appellant/assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise Appeal, Guwahati. The Appellate Authority answered the appeal in favour of the appellant by holding that the appellant fulfilled all the conditions including filing of the documents as per the trade notice and, therefore, is entitled to the benefit in question. It was also held that the notification in question as well as the law does not prescribe any time limit for claiming the benefit in question other than fulfill the condition. 7. The Department went in appeal before the CESTAT against the order of refund granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs and Central Page No.# 6/24 Excise. The Tribunal upon considering the submissions made by the Department as well as the submissions made by the Asseessee on the claims made by the assessee to have intimated the Department about installation of the machinery, held that a details scrutiny and verification by the authorities are necessary in this regard and therefore the matter was remanded back to be verified by the Department within a period of 2(two) weeks. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for deciding the issue afresh. 8. In the adjudication made pursuant to the CESTAT order dated 03.07.2013, which proceeded afresh the adjudicating authority by order dated 26.09.2013 again rejected the claims for refund by the assessee on the ground that it was not filed within a reasonable period. The Assessing Officer upon adjudicating the matter recorded his finding that the assessee/appellant did not intimate the department in any way about the expansion of their factory before submission of their refund claim. It was also held by the adjudicating authority that RT-12 returns for the month of December, 2000 also did not bear any endorsement as claimed by the assessee regarding expansion of their factory. Accordingly, by order dated 26.09.2013 the Adjudicating Officer dismissed the claims of the refund made by the assessee. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals). The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.11.2014 upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and rejected the appeal preferred by the assessee/appellant. The appellant/assessee, thereafter, approached the CESTAT Page No.# 7/24 challenging the Appellate order dated 10.11.2014. The CESTAT by the order dated 18.12.2019 upheld the order of the Appellate Authority and dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee/appellant. The Appellate Authority held that the exemption notification provided for separate statements to be filed and not merely RT-12 returns and it was held that the appellant did not fulfill the conditions of the exemptions notification. Further the CESTAT held that there is nothing in the returns to show that they have intended to claim the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. or had actually claimed in any of the returns whatsoever. The CESTAT held that this cannot be equated as fulfilling the conditions required under Para- 2 of the exemption notification. Being aggrieved the present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act has been preferred. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that rejection of the claims for refund by the appellant on the ground of limitation is wholly unjustified inasmuch as the Central Excise Notification No. 33/99-C.E. does not provide for any time limit or time frame within which the refund claims are required to be made. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the judgments of this Court in WP(C) No. 82/2013 [Mokalbari Konai Tea Estate (P) –Vs- The Union of India and Ors.] rendered by a co-ordinate bench of this Court as well as WP(C) No. 83/2013 [RNT Plantations Limited –Vs- Union of India and ors.] in support of the contentions raised before this Court. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant also relies upon the Judgment of M. K. Jokai Agri Plantations Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. –Vs- Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax reported in 2018 (2) GLT 1 rendered by a Co-ordinate Page No.# 8/24 Bench of this Court. 11. Relying on the Judgments and Orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, it is submitted that the law laid down by this Court is that there being no time-frame or limitation specified under the exemptions notification No. 33/99-C.E., the exemptions/refunds claimed by the appellant could not have been rejected by the adjudicating authority. The CESTAT having declined to interfere with the findings of the adjudicating authority, the same runs counter to the law laid down by this Court. It was required to be interfered with, set aside and quashed and the respondents ought to have been directed to allow the refund claims preferred by the assessee/appellant. 12. Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned standing counsel representing the Department strongly disputes the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Keyal, learned standing counsel submits that while there is no quarrel on the law laid down by the judgments relied upon the appellant. However, there are categorical finding arrived at by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the First Appellate Authority as well as by the CESTAT to that effect that there is no evidence produced by the appellant in support of its contentions before the adjudicating authority regarding the increase in the installed capacity pursuant to the expansion stated to have been carried out in terms of the notification No. 33/99-C.E. in order to make them eligible for claiming the exemption benefit under the said notification and that the same was also brought to the notice of the Range Officer. No evidence in support of such statement was furnished by the appellant throughout the adjudication proceedings before the authorities below. No such documents have also been produced Page No.# 9/24 before this Court. 13. Mr. Keyal, learned standing counsel has referred to another Judgment of this Court rendered in Chamong Tea Company Limited (Duflating Tea Estate) –Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh (C.Ex. Appeal No. 6 of 2021) which is also a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench and submits that the said judgment while accepting the views expressed in the earlier judgments have rejected the claims of the appellant therein on the ground that there were no materials or evidence produced in support of their claims that the assessee had submitted the relevant documents in terms of the requirement of the exemption Notification No. 33/99-C.E. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents submits no evidence has been brought out by the appellant in support of their claims that the increase in the installed capacity of their factory stated to have been carried out was brought to the notice of the Range Officer although several opportunities were granted by the Adjudicating Officer, the First Appellate Authority as well as the CESTAT. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises in the present proceedings and the present appeal should be dismissed. It is also submitted that the issue raised in the instant proceedings are squarely covered by the Judgment of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Chamong Tea Company Limited (Duflating Tea Estate). 15. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that in matters of interpretation exemption Notifications, it is to be construed strictly in case of any ambiguity in contrast to the interpretation of taxing provisions which, in case of any ambiguity are to Page No.# 10/24 be construed liberally in favour of the assessee. In support of his contentions he relies upon the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Commissioner of Customs –Vs- Dilip Kumar & Co. reported in (2018) 9 SCC 1 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti –Vs- CCE & Service Tax reported in (2022) 5 SCC 62. 16. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. We have given our anxious thoughts to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. Pleadings on record have also been carefully perused. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in the present proceedings, a reference to the Notification No. 33/99-C.E. dated 08.07.1999 is necessary. The said notification reads as under:- “Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 8.7.1999 Specified goods of factories in North East- Exemption In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act/ 1944 (1 of 1944), read with subsection (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957), and sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, (40 of 1.978), of the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods specified in the Schedule appended to this notification and clear from a unit located in the state of Assam or Tripura or Meghalaya or Mizoram or Manipur, or Nagaland or Arunachal Pradesh, as the case may be, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon under any of the said Acts as is equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of goods from the account current maintained under rule 9 read with rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The exemption contained in this notification shall be given effect to in the following manner, namely :- (a) The manufacturer shall submit a statement of the duty paid from the said account current to the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, by the 7th of the next month in which the duty has been paid from the account current. (b) The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, after such verification, as may be deemed necessary, shall refund the amount of duty paid from the Page No.# 11/24 account current during the month under consideration to the manufacturer by the 15th of the next month. (c) If there is likely to be any delay in the verification, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall refund the amount on provisional basis by the 15th of the next month to the month under consideration and thereafter may adjust the amount of refund by such amount as may be necessary in the subsequent refunds admissible to the manufacturer. 4. The exemption contained in this notification shall apply only to the following kind of units, namely :- (a) New industrial units which have commenced their commercial production on or after the 24th day of December, 1997; (b) Industrial units existing before the 24th day of December, 1997 but which have undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than twenty five per cent on or after the 24th day of December, 1997. 5. The exemption contained in this notification shall apply to any of the said units for a period not exceeding ten years from the date of publication of this notification or from the date of commencement of commercial production whichever is later. SCHEDULE 1. Fruit and Vegetable processing: (i) Canned or Bottled Products (ii) Aseptic Packaged Products (iii) Frozen products (iv) Dehydrated products (v) Oleoresins 2. Meat and Poultry Products : (i) Meat products (buffalo, sheep, goat and pork) (ii) Poultry Production (iii) Egg Power Plant 3. Cereal Based Products: (i) Maize Milling including starch and its derivatives (ii) Bread, Biscuits or Breakfast Cereals 4. Consumer Industry: (i) Snacks (ii) Non-Alcoholic beverages (iii) Confectionery including chocolate (iv) Pasta Products (v) Processed spices (vi) Processed Pulses (vii) Tapion Products Page No.# 12/24 5. Milk and Milk-based Products (i) Milk Powder (ii) Cheese (iii) Butter/Ghee (iv) Infant food (v) Weaning Food (vi) Mailed Milk Food 6. Food Packaging 7. Paper Products 8. Jute and Mesta Products 9. Cattle or Poultry or Fishery Feed Production 10. Edible Oil Processing or Vanaspati 11. Processing of Essential Oils and Fragrances 12. Processing and Raising of Plantation crops or Tea or Rubber or Coffee or Coconut 13. Gas based Intermediate Products (i) Gas exploration and Production (ii) Gas Distribution and Bottling (iii) Power Generation (iv) Plastics (v) Yam Raw Materials (vi) Fertilizers (vii) Methanol (viii) Formaldehyde and FR Resin Melamine and MF Resin (ix) Methylamine or Hexamethylenetetramine or Ammonium Bi-Carbonate (x) Nitric Acid and Ammonium Nitrate (xi) Carbon Black (xii) Polymer Chips 14. Agroforestry 15. Horticulture 16. Mineral based. Explanation. – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this notification, “Mineral” does not include crude petroleum oils and the expression “Mineral based” shall be construed accordingly. 17. Floriculture 18. Agro based” 17. A perusal of the Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 reveals that the procedure for claiming exemptions under the notification is provided for under Clause-2 of the said Notification. Clause 2(a) provides that a statement of duty paid from the account current is to be submitted Page No.# 13/24 by the manufacturer (the appellant herein) to the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner as the case may be, by the 7th of the next month in which the duty has been paid. Under clause (b) of the said notification, it is provided that the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of the Central Excise as the case may be, after such verification, as may be deemed necessary shall refund the amount of duty paid from account current during the month under consideration to the manufacturer by the 15th of next month. Under Clause (c) any delay in verification by the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is likely to arise, the refund amount shall be made on provisional basis by the 15th of next month to the manufacturer under consideration and thereafter may adjust the amount of refund by such amount as may be necessary in the subsequent admissible to the manufacturer. 18. In view of such procedures having been laid down by the Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 under Clause 2(A) of the said Notification, it is clear that refunds are to be claimed by filing a statement of duty paid to the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise as the case may be, by the 7th of next month by the manufacturer. The Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is required to make such verification as deemed necessary before any refund of duty paid is made. The notification also provides for making refund on provisional basis by the 15th of next month and thereafter adjust the amount of refund by such amount as may be necessary in subsequent refunds admissible to the manufacturer. Page No.# 14/24 19. A perusal of the pleadings including the reply dated 08.01.2009 filed by the appellant before the authority concerned reveals that such a procedure as prescribed in the Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, had not been followed by the appellant/assessee. What instead has been urged is that since the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable, no limitation is applicable and therefore, the claims made by the appellant cannot be debarred on the ground of limitation. While there is no quarrel with the proposition that in view of the several clarificatory notifications issued by the Custom and Central Excise Board, that limitation provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable in case of exemptions allowable under the Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, however unless suitably amended by the Central Government, the procedure prescribed thereunder including the requirement of filing statement of duty paid by the manufacturer by the 7th of next month as prescribed under Notification cannot be waived at the instance of the manufacturers/assessee unilaterally. Such proposition cannot be accepted more particularly in respect of revenue matters where public finance is involved. Although in the show-cause reply, it is stated that RT-12 Returns were regularly filed but there is no statement as to whether the RT-12 Returns filed by the appellant/assessee satisfied the requirement of filing a statement as per the procedure prescribed under Clause-2(a) of the Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999. There is completely no averment to that effect. Rather categorical statement is made in the show- cause reply that because of different stands taken by the Department at different times the manufacturer/appellant did not submit their claims at Page No.# 15/24 the relevant point in time. 20. We find that in the present proceedings also there is a categorical finding by the adjudicating authority which was relied upon by the CESTAT while rejecting the appeal preferred by the appellant/CESTAT. The said findings of the appellant authority are extracted below:- “During the hearing, the appellant did not submit copy of the letter acknowledged by the jurisdictional range. By their letter dated 09.03.2010 they further said that they have actually submitted RT-12 returns to the range office informing about the registration of new machinery. The appellant was repeatedly asked, in vain, to submit the particular copy of RT-12 returns on which they have claimed the exemption Notification and submitted the fact of expansion of their plant capacity. Therefore the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the claim as time barred”. These issues are factual issues which go to the root of the matter. The appellant even before this Court has not been able to substantiate its contentions that the increased installed capacity of their factory, in terms of the Notification No. 33/99-C.E. dated 08.07.1999 was brought to the notice of the Range Officer as had been claimed by the assessee before the Adjudicating Authority. Such statements of fact which could not be supported by the appellant before the adjudicating authority as well as the Appellate Authority and the CESTAT cannot give rise to any “question of law” let alone “substantial question of law”. It is well settled that the Tribunal is the final authority of facts. Where there is a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of records available, the High Court should be slow in interfering or upsetting such finding of fact arrived at by the CESTAT unless it can be shown that such findings of fact by the CESTAT are not supported by materials on record or the Tribunal has erroneously interpreted the materials which were available on record. Such is not the case in the present proceedings. The claims of the Page No.# 16/24 appellant that it had submitted details of the expansion of installed capacity before the Range Officer could not be supported by any documents before any authority. Therefore, the finding of fact by the CESTAT has assumed finality and would not be interfered with by the High Court in an appeal under Section 35G. 21. In CIT -Vs- K. Y. Pilliah & Sons reported in (1967) 63 ITR 411, the Apex Court held that the Tribunal is the final fact finding authority. It is held by the Apex Court that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is the fact- finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons, when the Appellate Tribunal fully agrees with the view expressed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and has no other ground to record in support of its conclusion, it does not act illegally or irregularly, merely because it does not repeat the grounds of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on which the decision was given against the assessees or the department. 22. In patnaik and Co. Ltd –Vs- CIT reported in (1986) 4 SCC 16, the Apex Court held that the Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority under the Income Tax Act and the High Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the statements of fact made by the Tribunal in its appellate order. The High Court may do so only if there is no evidence to support them or the Appellate Tribunal has misdirected itself in law in arriving at the findings of fact. But even there the High Court cannot disturb the findings of fact given by the Appellate Tribunal unless a challenge is directed specifically by a question framed in a reference against the validity of the impugned findings of fact on the ground that there is no Page No.# 17/24 evidence to support them or they are the result of a misdirection in law. Although, the said Judgments were rendered in respect of Income Tax Appeals, the ratio culled out by the Apex Court would also be applicable in an appeal under Section 35G of the CESTAT, as an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, is also maintainable only on substantial questions of law. 23. Insofar as the first substantial question of law is concerned, it is held that the requirement under the exemptions notification No. 33/99-C.E. is that the manufacturer shall submit a statement of duty paid from the said account current to the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner as the case may be, by the 7th of the next month in which the duty has been paid from the account current. The further requirement is that the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise as the case may be after such verification refund the amount of duty paid from the current account during the month under consideration to the manufacturer by the 15th of next month. The Tribunal had recorded a finding that there is no evidence in support of its contention that the expansion effected in the factory of the appellant were brought to the notice of the Range Officer. In spite of opportunities granted to the assessee no evidence in support thereof were produced before the adjudicating authority or before the CESTAT or even before this Court. There is no averment that the appellant had complied with the twin requirements prescribed under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. dated 08.07.1999 to make them eligible for the refunds claimed. Mere statement that they had undertaken substantial expansion would not make them Page No.# 18/24 eligible for the claims of refund. The twin condition prescribed under Notification 33/99-C.E. must be strictly complied with. The law in respect of interpretation of notifications granting exemptions is well settled. In Dilip Kumar & Co. (supra) the Apex Court held that a person claiming exemption has to establish that his case squarely falls within the exemption notification, and while doing so, a notification should be construed against the assessee in case of ambiguity. The Apex Court held that it is an equally well-known principle that a person who claims an exemption has to establish his case. The choice between a strict and a liberal construction arises only in case of doubt with regard to the intention of the legislature manifest on the statutory language. Indeed, the need to resort to any interpretative process arises only where the meaning is not manifest on the plain words of the statute. If the words are plain and clear and directly convey the meaning, there is no need for any interpretation. The Apex Court further held that a provision providing for an exemption, concession or exception, as the case may be, has to be construed strictly with certain exceptions depending upon the settings on which the provision has been placed in the statute and the object and purpose to be achieved. If exemption is available on complying with certain conditions, the conditions have to be complied with. The Apex Court held that the doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with the conditions or requirements that are important to invoke a tax or duty exemption and to forgive non-compliance for either unimportant and tangential requirements or requirements that are so confusingly or incorrectly written Page No.# 19/24 that an earnest effort at compliance should be accepted. 24. A mere perusal of the Notification No. 33/99-C.E. dated 08.07.1999 reveals that the conditions prescribed for claiming any exemption are clear and specific and there is no ambiguity. The conditions required to be fulfilled by an assessee who seek to claim the benefit under the said notification will have to satisfy the conditions prescribed. 25. In view of such specific requirements that the assessee must submit the statement of duty paid within the 7th of the next month to the Officers mentioned under the notification, submission of RT-12 returns alone by the appellant cannot be considered sufficient compliance of the notification No. 33/99-C.E. dated 08.07.1999. 26. We find that the Judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chamong Tea Company Limited (Duflating Tea Estate) in which one of us was a Member, had dealt with and had answered this issue. The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgments are extracted below:- “13. In view of such undisputed facts, the question which essentially arises for a decision in this appeal is not whether limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is applicable in respect of refund claims made under Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 but rather whether the procedure prescribed under Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 can be waived unilaterally at the instance of a beneficiary like the appellant while claiming refunds for duty paid. In the proceedings before the Department there is no finding that the procedure prescribed under Clause 2(a) of the Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 had been duly followed by the appellant. Rather in its reply to the show-cause Notice, the appellant only cited reasons for late filing of its refund claims. 14. The Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in M/s M.K. Jokai Agri Plantations P. Ltd Vs. Commissions of Central Excise & Service Tax, Dibrugarh does not come to the aid of the appellant. In the said Judgment, while considering whether limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 would apply to refund claims made under Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, this Court held that limitation under Section 11B of the Central Page No.# 20/24 Excise Act, 1944 will not be applicable provided the twin conditions are fulfilled namely, (i) substantial expansion of not less than 25% on or before 24th day of December, 1997 and (ii) filing of every month’s statement of duty paid from the account current to the Assistant Commissioner by the 7th of next month in which the duty has been paid from the account current. In the facts of that case since the assessee therein had fulfilled those conditions, this Court upheld the entitlement of the refund claims of the assessee therein and had held that when the twin conditions are satisfied, refund claims cannot be denied on the ground of limitation. 15. However, in the facts of the present case, there are no clear averments made by the appellant that conditions prescribed under Clause 2(A) of the Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 has been fulfilled by the appellant. Rather entire thrust of the appellant’s case is that notwithstanding the delay of about nine (9) years in claiming the refund, since limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not attracted for claiming benefits under the notification, the appellant is entitled to the refund claims made. Such contention of the appellant is clearly opposed to the law laid down this Court in M/s Jokai Agri Plantations Pvt. Ltd (Supra). 16. It is also pertinent to note that the earlier order of the Tribunal rendered in Vernerpur Tea Estate Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong and reliance upon which was placed by the Tribunal while passing the order dated 30.08.2017 impugned in the present appeal, has in the meantime being interfered with by the same Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. This Court in Vernerpur Tea Estate reported in 2018 0 Supreme (Gau) 69 also held that no limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 will be applicable in refund claims under Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, provided the twin conditions prescribed under Clause 2(A) of the Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 are fulfilled. We respectfully concur with the Judgments rendered in M/s Jokai plantations (Supra) and Vernerpur Tea Estate Pvt Ltd (Supra)”. 27. This Court in Chamong Tea Company Limited (Duflating Tea Estate) has held that the conditions prescribed in the Notification No. 33/99-C.E. are mandatory conditions which will have to be satisfied in order to avail the benefit under the particular notification. This Court while accepting the views of the Co-ordinate Bench in M/s Jokai Agri Plantations Pvt. Ltd (Supra) and in Vernerpur Tea Estate (supra) that limitation will not apply but the conditions mentioned in the notification No. 33/99-C.E. are required to be fulfilled and upon such compliance the assessee would be Page No.# 21/24 entitled to refund, had however, on the facts of the case held in Chamong Tea Company Limited (supra) that the said assessee therein did not fulfill the requirement prescribed and upon such findings declined to interfered with the order of the Tribunal. 28. Insofar as the present proceedings are concerned, it is seen that there is a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal that the assessee did not comply with the prescriptions under the Notification No. 33/99-C.E. Accordingly, the judgments of the Co-ordinate Benches rendered in M/s Jokai Agri Plantations Pvt. Ltd (Supra) and in Vernerpur Tea Estate (supra), in the facts of the case are not applicable in view of the specific finding of fact arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority that the answer could not substantiate their claim of intimating the Range Officer of the substantial expansion of their factory stated to have been undertaken to justify the compliance of the prescription under the Notification No. 33/99- C.E. and which view are upheld by the First Appellate Authority and as well as the Tribunal. The Judgment of another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relied upon by the assessee, namely, Mokalbari Konoi Tea Estate (P) Vs Union of India and Others will also not come to the aid of the assessee inasmuch as in the said matter, this Court allowed the said appeal only on the specific findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority in Mokalbari Konoi Tea Estate(supra) came to a finding that certain information and documents were found to have been submitted by the said assessee. However, in the absence of the department asking for further details, the First Appellate Authority held that the assessee was entitled to the refund under Notification No. 33/99- C.E. The said view was upheld by the Co-ordinate Bench and the appeal Page No.# 22/24 was allowed directing the implementation of the order of the Appellate Authority within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of the Judgment and Order. 29. However, as discussed above, the findings of fact in the present proceedings arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority, The First Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal are to the effect that the specific details sought for in respect of the claims made by the assessee that the expansion of the factory undertaken was informed to the jurisdictional Range Officer and the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed under Clause- 2 of the said notification were not submitted before the Adjudicating Authority or the First Appellate Authority or the Tribunal in spite of several opportunities being granted. As such, the contentions made by the assessee that they fulfill all the criteria prescribed under the Notification No. 33/99-C.E. could not be supported by the documents which they themselves had claimed to have filed before the authority concerned in support of their claims for refund. In view of the all the discussions, it cannot be said that the RT-12 returns submitted by the appellant can be considered to be a statement for refund under para- 2/Clause- 2 of the Notification No. 33/99-C.E. inasmuch as there are specific findings of facts by the Adjudicating Authority which are upheld by the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal that the RT- 12 returns does not disclose whether the expansion has been undertaken. That apart, the Notification No. 33/99-C.E. specifically prescribes for submitting a statement of duty paid from the account current to the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of the Central Excise by the 7th of next month in which the duty has been paid from the account current. Page No.# 23/24 The fact that no limitation prescribed under the said notification No. 33/99-C.E. will not make the answer eligible for the exemption/refund claim, unless they satisfy the procedure prescribed under the said notification. Merely because no limitation is prescribed and/or applicable cannot be a ground to consider their claims for exemption when they satisfy the prescriptions under the said notification. The assessee has failed to furnish adequate evidences in support of their claims that they had complied with the prescriptions under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. As such, the substantial question of law No. 1 is answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondents. 30. In respect of the substantial question No. 2 in view of the finding of fact by the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal that the documents furnished by the Assessee does not support further contentions that they had informed jurisdictional Range Officer in respect of the expansion undertaken and further from the RT- 12 returns submitted such expansions claimed to have been undertaken by the assessee are not discernible, substantial question No. 2 is also answered in negative and against the appellant. The substantial question No. 3 that limitation is not applicable to the Notification No. 33/99-C.E. is answered in favour of the appellant in view of the clear prescription under the Notification No. 33/99-C.E. itself as well as in view of the Judgments rendered by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in M/s Jokai Agri Plantations Pvt. Ltd (Supra) and in Vernerpur Tea Estate (supra). However, the prescription under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. for claiming exemptions or refunds must be strictly complied with in order Page No.# 24/24 to avail the exemption thereunder, notwithstanding limitation not being applicable as per the said notification. In view of the findings of this Court in respect of the substantial question Nos. 1 2 & 3 above, the substantial question No. 4 is answered in negative against the assessee and in favour of the respondents. 31. In view of the above findings, the Central Excise Appeal is accordingly disposed of as above. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant "