2012 (4) TMI 574 - HC - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 64/95-CE, dated March 16, 1995 - can the benefit of notification denied in respect of warehoused goods, on withdrawal of warehousing facility, when the goods are otherwise exempted? - Held that - Our attention has been drawn to General Exemption No. 24 of the N/N. 64/95-CE, dated March 16, 1995, wherein, at Sr. No. 3, it is specifically pointed out that all goods other than cigarettes if supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy or Coast Guard, are exempted - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a decision of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the denial of benefit of notification in respect of warehoused goods upon withdrawal of warehousing facility.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Appeal Initiation:
The appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the assessee, leading to the Revenue's dissatisfaction and subsequent initiation of the present appeal.

2. Judicial Precedents and Application:
The Tribunal relied on a decision of the Bengalaru Tribunal in the case of M/s. BPCL v. CCE, Mangalore, which established that the benefit of notification cannot be denied in the case of warehoused goods upon withdrawal of warehousing facility, especially when the goods are otherwise exempted. This decision was affirmed by the Karnataka High Court in the past, leading to the Revenue not pressing the appeal initially.

3. Factual Differences and Legal Interpretation:
The appellant's counsel argued that a key factual difference in this case was the absence of duty exemption, unlike the case relied upon by the Tribunal. Reference was made to General Exemption No. 24 of Notification No. 64/95-CE, which specifically exempted certain goods supplied for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy or Coast Guard.

4. Court's Decision and Reasoning:
Upon review, the court found that the Tribunal correctly granted relief to the assessee based on the specific exemption mentioned in the notification. It was concluded that no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the court.

5. Judicial Intervention and Conclusion:
Despite the Revenue's initial decision not to pursue the appeal, it was restored upon application, leading to the present judgment. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal provisions, factual distinctions, and the specific exemption clause, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeal in favor of the assessee.