2013 (9) TMI 60 - AT - Central Excise

Area based exemption - Benefit of notifications no.49/2003 and 50/2003 - Condition of filing of declaration - Held that - The whole idea of filing a declaration and choosing an option under intimation to the department is that the Revenue is put to notice. This intention having been fulfilled by the appellant in the months of July and August, 2003 would not result in denial of the benefit of notifications no.49/2003 and 50/2003, when the respondent fulfilled all the basics, essential and requisite conditions of the notifications as regards the location of the factory being in Himachal Pradesh. Such procedural contravention, if any, cannot result in denial of the substantive benefit of the notifications, if the same is otherwise available - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of area-based exemption notifications and compliance with amended notification requirements.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of the respondent, located in Himachal Pradesh, to avail area-based exemption notifications 49/2003 and 50/2003. The notifications required manufacturers to file declarations with detailed particulars to exercise the option for availing benefits. Subsequently, notification 76/2003 introduced a condition for filing a fresh option. The appellant claimed to have filed a fresh option on 10.11.2003, which the Revenue disputed as not received. The Commissioner noted that the respondent had earlier intimated the Revenue about their intention to avail the benefits of the notifications, despite the alleged non-filing of a fresh declaration.

The Commissioner's decision was based on the understanding that the procedural requirements of the notifications had been fulfilled by the respondent. The Commissioner referred to the earlier declarations filed by the respondent in July and August 2003, which included essential particulars required by the notifications. The Commissioner emphasized that the purpose of filing a declaration and choosing an option was to notify the Revenue, which had been achieved by the respondent's actions in 2003. The Commissioner held that any procedural contravention should not result in the denial of substantive benefits if the essential conditions of the notifications were met, such as the location of the factory being in Himachal Pradesh.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal agreed that the earlier declarations fulfilled the basic and essential conditions of the notifications, and the alleged failure to file a fresh declaration post-amendment did not warrant denial of benefits. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue had been duly notified of the respondent's intention to avail the benefits, and procedural lapses should not override substantive eligibility criteria. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument and affirmed the Commissioner's view, ensuring the respondent's entitlement to the area-based exemption notifications.