2011 (11) TMI 283 - AT - Central Excise

Eligibility for benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.9/99-CE, dt.28.2.99 for the period 1.4.99 to 3.5.99 in the absence of any formal declaration Held that - Conditions mentioned at Sr.No.2 of the notification, talks intimating authority regarding intention of the appellant or assessee to avail benefit of concessional rate of duty. There is no format prescribed for intimating the Revenue about this option and there is no requirement that a separate declaration is required to be filed by the assessee. Filing of a declaration in our views under the provisions of Rule 173B intimating the Revenue about their option to avail the benefit of the notification would suffice the said condition of the notification in question. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.9/99-CE for the period 1.4.99 to 3.5.99 in absence of formal declaration.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No.KS/142/VAPI/ 2006, where the appellant, a small scale industry, was availing the benefit of payment of duty at a concessional rate under Notification No.9/99-CE. The lower authorities contended that the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions of the notification, specifically condition No.2, during the period 1.4.99 to 3.5.99, resulting in a demand for a differential duty of Rs.3,46,896. A Show Cause Notice was issued, and the demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority, imposing a penalty and interest. The first appellate authority upheld the decision, leading to the current appeal.

The main contention revolved around the requirement of filing a declaration under Rule 173B to avail the benefit of the concessional rate of duty. The appellant argued that the declaration filed on 1.4.99, before effecting clearances for the financial year 1999-2000, fulfilled the conditions of the notification. The appellant relied on various decisions to support their claim, emphasizing substantial compliance with the notification's conditions. The authorized representative for the Department, however, argued that the appellant had not complied with condition No.2 of the notification, emphasizing strict adherence to the notification's requirements.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the issue at hand concerned the appellant's eligibility for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No.9/99-CE for the period in question, despite the absence of a formal declaration. The Tribunal noted that the declaration filed by the appellant on 1.4.99 under Rule 173B, acknowledged by the Inspector of Central Excise, contained all the necessary details as required by condition No.2 of the notification. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention that they had intimated the Department about their intention to avail the concessional rate of duty on 1.4.99, and cited a similar case where a co-ordinate Bench had ruled in favor of the appellant under comparable circumstances.

Referring to the co-ordinate Bench's decision, the Tribunal highlighted that the notification did not prescribe a specific format for the declaration and that filing a declaration under Rule 173B was sufficient to fulfill the condition of intimating the Revenue about availing the notification's benefits. The Tribunal emphasized that the hyper-technical view adopted by the lower authorities was unjustified, as there was no requirement for a separate declaration in a specified proforma. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief to the appellant.