Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2010 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 747 - AT - Central ExciseManufacturing of handy-craft - Whether exemption notification can be claimed at any point of time - Held that - benefit of Notification No. 76/86-Central Excise is not available to the respondents or the same has been wrongly extended by the Commissioner (Appeals), the benefit of any notification, if otherwise available cannot be denied on the sole ground that the same is claimed belatedly. merits in the respondents plea that the Revenue has not raised any grounds against setting aside of penalties on the respondents, no merits in the appeals and the same are accordingly, rejected.
Issues:
Appeal against impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding extension of benefit of Notification No. 76/86-C.E. to respondent M/s. Karigar, failure to claim exemption at the time of investigation, applicability of Notification No. 36/2001-C.E. (N.T.), availability of exemption notification at any point of time, contesting penalties on other respondents, denial of benefit for belated claim. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal, in a common order, addressed the appeals filed by the Revenue against the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the extension of the benefit of Notification No. 76/86-C.E. to M/s. Karigar. The appellate authority considered the embroidery made by the respondent as covered under the definition of handy-craft, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Louis Shoppe. Additionally, the authority took into account Board Circular No. 789/22/2004-C.X. and set aside the demand of duty against M/s. Karigar and penalties on co-noticees. The Revenue, through the learned SDR, argued that the benefit of Notification No. 76/86-Central Excise was not claimed by the respondents during the investigation or earlier. Reference was made to Notification No. 36/2001-C.E. (N.T.) mandating manufacturers to claim exemption and file a declaration. The Revenue contended that since no such declaration was filed, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in considering the applicability of Notification No. 76/86-C.E. The Revenue sought to set aside the impugned order and reinstate the adjudicating authority's decision. In response, the learned advocate for the respondent emphasized that exemption notifications can be claimed at any time if available. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Share Medical Care v. UOI, it was argued that not claiming a benefit initially does not preclude claiming it later. The advocate also noted that the Revenue did not contest the setting aside of penalties on other respondents in their appeal. After considering both arguments, the Tribunal found that the Revenue did not dispute the availability of the benefit under Notification No. 76/86-Central Excise to the respondents. The Tribunal held that the belated claim for such benefit does not warrant denial, citing Supreme Court precedent. Moreover, the Tribunal noted the Revenue's failure to challenge the setting aside of penalties on other respondents. Consequently, the appeals were rejected, finding no merit in the Revenue's contentions.
|