2011 (9) TMI 314 - AT - Central Excise

Notification No. 30/2004-CE - said notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.04 was amended with effect from 1.3.05 and the yarn subjected to Draw Winder also became exempt - correct date of instalment of the Draw Winder Machine - repeatedly directed to submit the purchase bill of Draw Winder Machine the same was not submitted - It was only with reply to the show cause notice that an invoice No. M 18 dated 2.4.05 was presented which was rejected on the ground that it is an afterthought - Held that Revenue if desired could have examined and verified the correctness of the same. Instead they have chosen to disregard the said invoice - Revenue if desired could have examined and verified the correctness of the same. Instead they have chosen to disregard the said invoice - Appeal gets disposed off

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct date of installation of Draw Winder Machine in the factory.
2. Availability of exemption benefit based on installation date.
3. Reliance on oral evidence versus documentary evidence.
4. Rejection of invoice as an afterthought.
5. Duty of authorities to consider and verify documentary evidence.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the installation date of a Draw Winder Machine in the appellant's factory and its impact on the exemption benefit under Notification No. 30/2004-CE. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Partially Oriented Yarn (POY), claimed the exemption post-amendment on yarn subjected to Draw Winder. The lower authorities relied on oral statements indicating early installation, disregarding a purchase invoice submitted later. The Tribunal noted the importance of documentary evidence, emphasizing the duty of authorities to consider and verify such evidence. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for reconsideration based on the invoice showing the machine purchase after March 2005.

The Tribunal highlighted the significance of verifying documentary evidence over oral statements in determining eligibility for exemption benefits. The appellant's grievance stemmed from the lower authorities' reliance on oral evidence without adequately considering the submitted purchase invoice. The Tribunal stressed that when documentary evidence is available, authorities must diligently assess its validity rather than dismissing it as an afterthought. By remanding the matter for reconsideration, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a thorough examination of all relevant evidence to ensure a fair and just decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision underscored the procedural importance of properly evaluating documentary evidence in tax disputes. By emphasizing the duty of authorities to consider and verify such evidence, the Tribunal aimed to uphold fairness and accuracy in determining eligibility for exemption benefits. The remand for reconsideration based on the submitted purchase invoice reflected the Tribunal's commitment to ensuring a comprehensive review of all pertinent evidence before reaching a final decision.