2011 (4) TMI 1057 - AT - Central Excise

Whether benefits, of Notification No. 121/94-C.E., dated 11-8-1994 was available to the appellants or not Held that - execution of bonds as provided in that chapter is also not an empty formality for obtaining the duty free excisable goods. Bonds also insist for a declaration. CT-2 Certificate will be issued only if a party gets registered under Form R-2 from the Registering Authority. Only if CT-2 Certificate is obtained, the excisable goods could be removed. Form RG-16 Register and the details to be furnished in Form RT-11 are also statutory in nature, which relate to the substance and essence of the requirements under Chapter X. Indisputedly, those requirements had not been complied with, appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Availability of exemption under Notification No. 121/94-C.E., dated 11-8-1994 for specified intermediate goods used in the manufacture of final products.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved the appellants engaged in the manufacture of a product called Kimam or compound, which was further processed into edible branded chewing tobacco. The Tribunal initially confirmed duty on the product but remanded the matter to determine the availability of benefits under Notification No. 121/94-C.E. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, denied the benefit of the notification, leading to the present appeal challenging the duty demand and penalty imposed.

The key issue before the Tribunal was whether the exemption from remission of excise duty on specified intermediate goods was available under Notification No. 121/94-C.E. when those goods were captively consumed for manufacturing final products. The Apex Court's decision in Commissioner of C. Ex., New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal was cited to address this issue. The Court highlighted various rules under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which outlined the procedures and conditions for obtaining exemption from excise duty on specified goods.

The judgment emphasized the strict construction of exemption clauses, stating that claimants must establish their entitlement clearly. The Court stressed that mandatory requirements of conditions must be precisely obeyed, with some flexibility allowed only for directory provisions. The doctrine of substantial compliance was discussed, indicating that compliance with essential statutory requirements is necessary to invoke exemptions. The judgment highlighted the significance of fulfilling procedural obligations, such as obtaining specific certificates and making declarations, to qualify for duty exemptions.

The learned Advocate for the appellants and Jt. CDRs for the respondent acknowledged that the issue was conclusively addressed by the Apex Court in a previous case. Consequently, both parties agreed that the appeal should be dismissed based on the precedent set by the earlier decision. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the denial of exemption benefits under Notification No. 121/94-C.E.

Overall, the judgment delved into the intricate procedural and substantive aspects of excise duty exemptions, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements to qualify for such benefits. The decision underscored the need for claimants to adhere meticulously to prescribed procedures and conditions outlined in relevant statutes to avail themselves of duty exemptions effectively.