2015 (9) TMI 826 - HC - Central Excise

Export of yarn without payment of duty under Rule 19 - no permission was obtained from the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner nor the procedure under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 read with Notification No.43/2001-CE (NT) dated 20.06.2001 was followed by M/s. Loyal Textile Mills Ltd - Held that - no permission was sought for and granted to the assessee so far as yarn is concerned. This is despite the fact that a specific plea has been taken by the 2nd respondent/assessee in the appeal before the Tribunal. A copy of the said letter addressed by the Superintendent of Central Excise to the assessee has been placed before this Court, which has also been recorded by the Tribunal in its order. Though, the said letter was before the Tribunal and forms part of its order, however, this question of fact, which is disputed by the Revenue, has not been addressed by the Tribunal. Once a finding is recorded by the Tribunal on facts, it is supposed to address each and every issue that is placed before it by the parties on such fact. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 43/2001-CE NT dated 26.6.01.
2. Compliance with Central Excise Rules and procedures.
3. Permission for clearance of yarn and fabrics between two units.
4. Admissibility of benefit under Notification No. 43/2001-CE NT.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 43/2001-CE NT dated 26.6.01
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee, holding that the removal of processed fabrics without payment of duty was in order based on the interpretation of the word "procured" in the notification. The Tribunal's decision primarily rested on this interpretation, leading to the present appeals by the Revenue challenging this interpretation.

Issue 2: Compliance with Central Excise Rules and procedures
The Tribunal considered the facts and noted the permission granted by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for the clearance of fabrics between the two units. The Tribunal concluded that the prescribed procedure had been followed, and the removal of processed fabrics without duty payment was deemed appropriate. This compliance with the rules and procedures formed a crucial aspect of the Tribunal's decision.

Issue 3: Permission for clearance of yarn and fabrics between two units
The matter involved the movement of yarn and fabrics between two units for processing and export. The department contended that no permission was obtained for this movement, leading to a show cause notice demanding duty payment. However, the Tribunal's analysis highlighted the permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner, which was communicated to the concerned parties, allowing the benefit of the notification.

Issue 4: Admissibility of benefit under Notification No. 43/2001-CE NT
The dispute revolved around the applicability of the benefit under Notification No. 43/2001-CE NT to the assessee. The department issued a show cause notice challenging this benefit, leading to the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee based on compliance with rules and the interpretation of the notification. The Tribunal's ruling emphasized the importance of obtaining permission and following the prescribed procedures for availing such benefits.

Conclusion:
The High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for further consideration based on a factual question regarding the permission granted for the clearance of yarn, which was not adequately addressed in the previous proceedings. The Court emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner and its impact on the assessee's claim under Notification No. 43/2001-CE NT. The decision highlighted the significance of factual findings in determining the admissibility of benefits under relevant notifications and the importance of procedural compliance in excise matters.