CX - Assessee filed a refund claim being the additional customs duty paid by them erroneously on DTA clearance to their sister unit that is M/s. Brakes India Ltd. due to wrong understanding of notfn 23/2003-CE - Same was rejected by holding that assessees are not eligible for exemption of notification and that the additional customs duty has been rightly paid by them - The refund also was rejected on the ground that assessee have not produced any document to establish the ground of unjust enrichment - According to assessee, authorities below have erred in rejecting the refund claim both on the ground that assessee is not eligible for benefit of said Notfn and also on the ground of unjust enrichment - Assessee has submitted that if the goods are exempt from payment of sales tax / VAT, then the additional customs duty is to be included - Subject goods were leviable to Sales Tax / VAT and payment of Sales Tax / VAT was deferred to point of sale - As there is no exemption from VAT / Sales Tax, per se, benefit of notfn cannot be denied to them - With regard to unjust enrichment, he submitted that the authorities below have assumed that assessee have passed on the incidence of duty to customers - That their accounts would show that the duty element has not been passed on to their customers - Considering the argument put forward by assessee as well as the facts presented, assessee has presented an arguable case for reconsideration of the matter - Therefore matter remanded to adjudicating authority for reconsideration of both the issues: CESTAT

Since the assessee could easily have applied the higher value MRP stickers for particular states before clearing the goods at Paonta Sahib and before availing the exemption, it is difficult to see any intention or reason for assessee to evade payment of duty - In these circumstances, there does not appear any mens rea on the part of assessee - Extended period is not invokable - Matter is therefore remanded back to the adjudicating authority to work out the demand for normal period of limitation.

In the absence of mens rea, penalty is not imposable on assessee under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 - The penalty on other assessees under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, is also not imposable in the absence of any malafide intent: CESTAT - Matter remanded : CHENNAI CESTAT

CX - Assessee is manufacturer of electric fans and is availing exemption from duty under notfn 49/2003 and 50/2003 - The allegation of Revenue is that through their activity of packing and repacking the electric fans and re-labelling the MRP stickers on cartons in respect of fans which were sent outside, assessee had engaged in process of manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) of CEA, 1944 - Activity carried out by assessee in their Faridabad godown cannot be called as packing or re-packing in unit container because as per the statement of Sh. J.P. Gupta, Dy. General Manager, four motors and four sets of blades received from their factory at Paonta Sahib were packed together in master cartons - Further, as per the statement given by Sh. Ram Verma, the store in-charge, four motors with one set of blades for each were packed in one carton and then re-packed in one outer master carton - The master carton was fastened with a packing strip and MRP sticker was affixed on the said master carton - Said activity cannot be called packing or re-packing of goods in unit containers because the master carton in which four blades sets and four motors sets were packed and MRP sticker applied is not a unit container - Coming to labelling part, which was carried out in assessee's godown, at the time of receipt of goods, said goods bore the MRP stickers valid for 10 or 11 states - However, if the said goods were to be dispatched to states other than those 10 or 11 states, the old MRP sticker was changed and a new higher value MRP sticker was affixed - The word re-labelling is followed by inclusive part which expressly mentions alteration of retail sale price as one type of re-labelling, which on its own would amount to manufacture - Hence, the activity carried out by assessee at their Faridabad godown amounts to manufacture.

Since the assessee could easily have applied the higher value MRP stickers for particular states before clearing the goods at Paonta Sahib and before availing the exemption, it is difficult to see any intention or reason for assessee to evade payment of duty - In these circumstances, there does not appear any mens rea on the part of assessee - Extended period is not invokable - Matter is therefore remanded back to the adjudicating authority to work out the demand for normal period of limitation.

In the absence of mens rea, penalty is not imposable on assessee under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 - The penalty on other assessees under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, is also not imposable in the absence of any malafide intent: CESTAT - Appeal allowed : CHANDIGARH CESTAT

CX - Claim of refund was filed by assessee on the amount paid by them for extended period of limitation which was held as not invokable in the facts of this case - The said order, although has been challenged by Revenue before Apex Court but no stay has been obtained - In that circumstance, assessee is entitled for the refund claim for amount paid for extended period of limitation which they have paid and the same has been rightly sanctioned to assessee - Further, as the assessee was not able to utilise Cenvat credit account as their product become exempted from payment of duty, therefore, in the light of High Court in case of Prayagraj Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Limited , Commissioner (A) has rightly sanctioned the refund claim in cash - Therefore, no infirmity found in order passed by Commissioner (A).

With regards to claim of interest on delayed refund, it is an admitted fact that refund claim filed by the assessee on 05.07.2013 has been allowed to them in their Cenvat account on 12.10.2015, which is more than three months from the date of filing of refund claim - Therefore, in the light of decision of Apex Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX , the assessee is entitled to claim interest after three months from the date of filing of refund claims: CESTAT - Revenue's appeal dismissed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT