2014 (4) TMI 984 - HC - Central Excise

Denial of benefit of Notification No.2/2001-Central Excise - Nature of activity - exemption to goods donated or purchased out of cash donation for the relief and rehabilitation of the people affected by the earthquake in the State of Gujarat from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. - earlier HC has issued direction to the collector to issue certificate in respect of two vehicles - collector did not issue the certificate on the ground that, the work undertaken by the petitioner was not that of rehabilitation and reconstruction - Held that - having held that the communication in the form of order was issued without considering the notification dated 27.1.2001 in proper perspective, aforementioned direction had been issued by the court. Thus, the Collector's scrutiny in the second round was limited to examination of issue of purchase of vehicles as to whether the same was with the cash donation and whether their use was for the relief work of victims of earthquake. No parochial meaning could be attributed to the words relief and rehabilitation particularly keeping in mind the facts and circumstances existed at the relevant time in the district causing devastating effect everywhere. In our candid opinion, respondent has not examined the very aspect of ' relief at all and whether the work rendered could fall under the purview of the term ' relief, but simply denied the benefit by holding that such work of the petitioner cannot be termed as work of reconstruction and rehabilitation . Respondent by not examining and thereby impliedly not accepting the services rendered by the petitioner society as work of relief for the purpose rehabilitation at the time when the entire district Kutch was severely affected by the fury of earthquake has not appreciated true construction of these words. We in terms, therefore, on the basis of the above discussion hold that the relief of free legal aid and counselling provided by the petitioner to various victims of earthquake and making them aware of the various packages made available by the Government and guiding them aptly so also advising them suitably on legal issues would be squarely covered under the words relief and rehabilitation . Resultantly, it is to be held that misreading of the notification is evident once again. To say that the work of petitioner did not include the work of rehabilitation and reconstruction, despite those words having been absent in the notification, respondent No.1 when has chosen to reiterate those very words, we do not see any reason to uphold the contention of the respondents of accepting such interpretation which is ex facie untenable - Therefore, the order impugned of respondent No.1 needs quashment and hence is quashed with a further direction to respondent No.1 to grant 'utilization certificate' for the purpose of granting exemption from payment of central exercise in receipt of this order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of "relief and rehabilitation" under Notification No. 2/2001-Central Excise.
2. Compliance with conditions for excise duty exemption on vehicles purchased for earthquake relief.
3. Adequacy of documentary evidence for purchase of vehicles from cash donations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of "relief and rehabilitation" under Notification No. 2/2001-Central Excise:
The petitioner, Rajpipla Social Service Society, challenged the denial of an excise duty exemption for two vehicles purchased for providing free legal aid and counseling to earthquake victims in Kutch. The core issue was the interpretation of "relief and rehabilitation" in Notification No. 2/2001-Central Excise. The court clarified that the notification's language emphasized "relief and rehabilitation" rather than "rehabilitation and reconstruction." The court noted that the Collector had incorrectly limited the notification's scope to physical reconstruction activities. The court reiterated that "relief and rehabilitation" should be broadly interpreted to include various forms of aid, including legal assistance, which helps restore normalcy for affected individuals.

2. Compliance with conditions for excise duty exemption on vehicles purchased for earthquake relief:
The petitioner purchased two vehicles in July 2001 for earthquake relief work. The notification required certification from the District Magistrate that the goods were donated for relief and rehabilitation. Initially, the Collector denied the certificate, interpreting the petitioner's activities as not falling under "rehabilitation and reconstruction." The High Court had previously directed the Collector to reconsider the application, emphasizing the correct interpretation of "relief and rehabilitation." Despite this, the Collector repeated the same error, failing to recognize the petitioner's legal aid and counseling as valid relief activities. The court held that the Collector's narrow interpretation was incorrect and that the petitioner's activities indeed fell within the scope of "relief and rehabilitation."

3. Adequacy of documentary evidence for purchase of vehicles from cash donations:
The petitioner was required to prove that the vehicles were purchased using cash donations. Despite multiple hearing dates, the petitioner initially failed to provide adequate documentary evidence. However, during the proceedings, the petitioner submitted additional affidavits, including income tax returns, foreign contribution receipts, and ledger accounts, to substantiate the claim. The court examined these documents and found them sufficient to establish that the vehicles were purchased from cash donations. The court noted that these documents were statutorily credible and satisfied the notification's requirements.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner met all conditions of the notification, including the purchase of vehicles from cash donations and their use for relief and rehabilitation. The court quashed the Collector's order and directed the issuance of the utilization certificate, granting the petitioner exemption from excise duty. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.