CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Excise Appeal No. 60798 of 2017 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. J&K-Excus-APP-19-23/16-17 dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and ST, Ludhiana]

M/s Kds Batteries ……Appellant Phase-I, IGC, Samba, Jammu & Kashmir 184121 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise and ST, ……Respondent Jammu and Kashmir OB-32, Rail Head Complex, Jammu & Kashmir WITH

2. Excise Appeal No. 60799 of 2017 (M/s Kds Batteries)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. J&K-Excus-APP-19-23/16-17 dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and ST, Ludhiana]

3. Excise Appeal No. 60800 of 2017 (M/s Kds Batteries)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. J&K-Excus-APP-19-23/16-17 dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and ST, Ludhiana]

4. Excise Appeal No. 60801 of 2017 (M/s Kds Batteries)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. J&K-Excus-APP-19-23/16-17 dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and ST, Ludhiana]

5. Excise Appeal No. 60802 of 2017 (M/s Kds Batteries)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. J&K-Excus-APP-19-23/16-17 dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and ST, Ludhiana]

APPEARANCE:

Shri S.K. Malhotra, C.A. for the Appellant Shri Varun Sharma, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60043-60047/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 15.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 15.01.2026 S.S.GARG:

These five appeals are directed against common impugned order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Ludhiana, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeals of the department by setting aside the Orders-in-Original dated 16.05.2016 sanctioning the refund under area based exemption Notification No.01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010. Since the issue involved in all the appeals is identical and the impugned order is also common in all the appeals, therefore, all the appeals are taken up together for the purpose of discussion and decisions.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant is a sole proprietary concern, engaged in the manufacture of Cement falling under Chapter 78 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Act. The appellant was availing the benefit of exemption under the cash refund scheme as provided under Para 4(a) of Notification No. 01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010 and as per the condition for 4(a), the manufacturer was supposed to submit a statement of the total duty paid and that paid by utilization of Cenvat credit as per clause 4(a) to the Assistant Commissioner /Deputy Commissioner by 7^th day of next month in which the duty has been paid. In the present cases, the statement was filed after some delay as mentioned in para 3 of the impugned order. After following the due process, the adjudicating authority determined and sanctioned the refund vide Order-in-Original dated 16.05.2016 in terms of the Notification No. 01/2010-CE. Aggrieved by the said order, the Department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that there was a delay in filing the statement by the appellant and hence, the condition of the Notification has been violated and they were not entitled for the refund. After considering the submissions of the parties, learned Commissioner set aside the Order-in-Original by allowing the appeals of the Department; hence, the present appeals.

3. Heard both sides and perused the material on records.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order in setting aside the Order-in-Original granting refund is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and binding judicial precedents. He further submits that the appellant has complied with the condition of the Notification except that there was delay in filing the st