9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1078 - AT - Central ExciseNotification No.9/03-CE, dt.1.3.03 benefit denied - non filing of declaration exercising an option for payment of duty at concessional rate - Held that - The issue is no more res integra and it stand held in various decisions of the Tribunal that no separate declaration intimating the Revenue about the option to avail the benefit of notification is required to be filed, inasmuch as the notification nowhere prescribe any proforma to file such declaration. As such, claim of the notification itself is sufficient for intimating the Revenue about appellant s choice to avail benefit of notification. See M/s Simcon Engineers Vs. CCE Kolkata 2001 (11) TMI 525 - CEGAT, KOLKATA , M/s Super Plateck Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Chandigarh 2004 (11) TMI 445 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Issues:
Interpretation of small scale notification No.9/99-CE and its substitution by Notification No.9/03-CE, requirement of filing a declaration for availing the benefit of the notification, denial of benefit leading to duty confirmation, interest, and penalty imposition. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, involved a straightforward issue concerning the appellant, a small scale unit, and its entitlement to the benefit of Notification No.9/03-CE, which replaced the earlier Notification No.9/99-CE. The crux of the matter was the necessity of filing a declaration as per Condition No.(i) of Para 2 of the notification to exercise the option for duty payment at a concessional rate. The appellant failed to file a separate declaration, leading to the denial of the notification's benefits and subsequent initiation of proceedings resulting in the confirmation of duty, interest, and a penalty of Rs.1,50,000. Upon careful consideration and after hearing both parties, the Tribunal referred to established precedents to resolve the issue. The Tribunal highlighted that no separate declaration was mandated by the notification, and the mere claim of the notification sufficed to inform the Revenue about the appellant's choice to avail the benefits. In support of this interpretation, the Tribunal cited several decisions, including M/s Simcon Engineers Vs. CCE Kolkata 2002 (144) ELT 446 (Tri-Kolkata), M/s Super Plateck Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Chandigarh 2005 (186) ELT 561 (Tri-Del.), CCE Rajkot Vs. M/s Kelvin Plastics Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (193) ELT 418 (Tri-Mumbai), and M/s Philco Exports Vs. CCE New Delhi 2009 (234) ELT 568 (Tri-Del.). Consequently, given the settled nature of the issue as per the aforementioned decisions, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing the appellant with the consequential relief. The judgment, delivered by Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, effectively resolved the dispute by clarifying the procedural requirements for availing the benefits of the notification without the necessity of a separate declaration, thereby upholding the appellant's claim and nullifying the duty confirmation, interest, and penalty imposed earlier.
|
