2007 (2) TMI 433 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise regarding exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., rejection of refund claims, self-credit option, demand confirmation, interest charging, typing error in Khasra number, recommendation for correction by State Government, unit location under SIDCO Industrial Complex, distinction between Sl. No. 1 and Sl. No. 2 in the notification.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a challenge to the order of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise dated 27-10-2006, where exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. was denied, refund claims were rejected, and a demand of Rs. 3,66,29,314/- was confirmed, with interest contemplated. The applicant contended a typing error in the Khasra number, stating it as 1923 and 1959 instead of 1123, which does not exist. The Government of Jammu Kashmir, through a letter, supported the correction of the Khasra number to 1123, certifying the unit's location. The State Government's letter also mentioned the unit's name and address, recommending the correction. The issue of the unit's location under the SIDCO Industrial Complex was raised, with arguments distinguishing between Sl. No. 1 and Sl. No. 2 in the notification. The State Government's letter referred to Sl. No. 1 Bari Brahamana, while the unit was under the SIDCO Industrial Complex, Bari Brahamana. Despite this distinction, the Tribunal found merit in the applicant's case for waiver of the duty demanded in the impugned order, allowing the application and scheduling the appeal for final hearing in due course.

This judgment highlights the importance of accurate documentation and the impact of typographical errors in legal matters. The Tribunal considered the correspondence from the State Government crucial in supporting the correction of the Khasra number, which played a significant role in determining the unit's eligibility for exemption and refund claims. The distinction between different industrial areas specified in the notification was also a key point of contention, emphasizing the need for precision in legal interpretations. The decision to allow the applicant's request for waiver based on the State Government's recommendation underscores the significance of administrative support and cooperation in resolving such disputes. The Tribunal's careful analysis and consideration of the evidence presented demonstrate a thorough review of the case to ensure a just outcome.