2015 (9) TMI 1144 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of concessional rate of duty - whether or not the assessee is eligible for concession under Notification No. 9/98-CE dated 02/06/1998 - Held that - The concessional rate of duty as per Notification No. 9/98-CE dated 02/06/98 has been undisputedly claimed by the respondent in their classification declaration effective from 01/7/98. The respondent paying full rate thereafter by itself cannot be considered as an act which will make the earlier declaration legally ineffective as argued by Department. No such presumption can be made without legal basis. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for concession under Notification No. 9/98-CE dated 02/06/1998.

Analysis:
The Department appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 13/01/2006 regarding the eligibility of the assessee for concession under Notification No. 9/98-CE. The dispute centered around whether the assessee fulfilled the conditions to avail the concessional rate of excise duty. The respondent, a manufacturer of plastics, had claimed the concessional rate under the said notification. However, proceedings were initiated against the respondent for not fulfilling the conditions, leading to a demand confirmation with penalty. The Tribunal remanded the case back for proceedings. The original authority later held the respondent eligible for the concessional rate, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the Department's appeal before the Tribunal.

The learned Authorized Representative (AR) argued that the respondent paying the full rate of duty after filing a classification declaration claiming the concessional rate rendered the declaration ineffective. This was the primary ground against the impugned order, with no representation from the respondent.

Upon reviewing the submissions and appeal records, the Tribunal found that the respondent had claimed the concessional rate in their classification declaration effective from 01/7/98. The fact that the respondent paid the full rate subsequently did not automatically invalidate the earlier declaration, as argued by the Department. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no legal basis to presume that paying the full rate made the initial declaration legally ineffective.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, deeming it without merit. The decision was pronounced in the open court as the operative part of the order.