2016 (2) TMI 1040 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) dated 26-6-2001 - denial on the ground that proof of export was not submitted within the period of six months from the date of clearance and the appellant has not filed ARE-1 triplicate copy with the Revenue within a period of 24 hours - Held that - The condition of filing the proof of export is there in the notification but no time period is laid down. As such the time limit of six months by the authorities below was not justified - the appellant had not supplied the goods to the SEZ units. In such a scenario the submission of ARE-1 triplicate copy with the Revenue within 24 hours cannot be a ground for denial of benefit - matter remanded to the lower authorities for examining as to whether the goods were actually cleared to SEZ units and were received by them - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) for clearance of final products to SEZ units.
2. Non-submission of proof of export within six months and ARE-1 triplicate copy within 24 hours.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in the case revolved around the denial of benefit under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) for the clearance of final products to SEZ units. The appellant was denied a benefit of Rs. 9,08,005 on the grounds of not submitting proof of export within six months and failing to file the ARE-1 triplicate copy within 24 hours. The Tribunal noted that while the condition of submitting proof of export was present in the notification, no specific time limit was mentioned. The Tribunal agreed that the time limit imposed by the authorities was unjustified. The learned advocate argued that the delay in submitting the ARE-1 triplicate copy should not lead to the denial of benefits if there was no dispute regarding the supply of goods to the SEZ units.

2. The Tribunal found merit in the advocate's contention, emphasizing that the Revenue did not dispute the supply of goods to the SEZ units. Citing precedents such as Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad and K.B. Power Care Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad, the Tribunal highlighted that procedural violations should not be a sole reason for denying substantive benefits available to the assessee. Referring to a decision by the Government of India in the case of P.K. Tubes and Fittings Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal underscored that procedural laws should not impede justice and should be subservient to the overarching goal of justice. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the non-submission of the ARE-1 triplicate copy within 24 hours should not be a basis for denying the benefits under the said notification.

3. Consequently, the Tribunal opined that the denial of benefits based on the non-submission of the ARE-1 triplicate copy within 24 hours was unwarranted if the benefits were otherwise available to the assessee. The Tribunal, in response to the learned DR's prayer for remand, decided to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority solely to examine whether the goods were indeed cleared to the SEZ units and received by them. The appeal was disposed of in this manner, ensuring that procedural lapses did not unjustly deprive the appellant of the benefits entitled to them.

This detailed analysis of the issues and the Tribunal's reasoning provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment's key points and legal interpretations.