2016 (1) TMI 92 - AT - Customs

100% EOU - Appellant received sandal wood from M/s Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. (KSDL) for extraction of sandal wood oil on job work basis - due permission for doing the job work was not availed by the appellant from the Development Commissioner - Held that - No doubt the assessee working under the customs and excise arena is required to follow the procedure laid down under the law and to fulfill the conditions for availment of benefit of any procedure of law. However, it is also well settled that some of the conditions required to be followed by an assessee are procedural conditions. Whereas non-fulfillment of substantive conditions would definitely result in denial of consequent benefit, non-fulfillment of procedural conditions may not. It is the Revenue s case that if the permission of the Development Commissioner was sought, it would have been granted by him in the ordinary course. The appellant was entitled to do job work for the principal manufacturer located in DTA. In such a scenario, we are of the view that non-taking of the permission, though a contravention, may not result in confirmation of demand of duty. Accordingly, we set aside the confirmation of duty along with interest and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act - as there is admittedly a violation of the procedures required to be followed by the appellant, we uphold the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 but reduce the same to ₹ 2000 - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant, a 100% EOU, was required to obtain permission from the Development Commissioner for job work involving extraction of sandalwood oil.
2. Whether the failure to obtain permission for job work would result in the confirmation of duty, interest, and penalty against the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in extracting sandalwood oil on a job work basis, received sandalwood from another entity. The dispute centered on the lack of permission from the Development Commissioner for this job work. The Revenue contended that due to the absence of permission, the appellant should pay duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 28,220 along with a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules.

2. The Tribunal noted that while the appellant did not have the required permission, the Revenue did not dispute that the job work was done for the other entity. The crucial question was whether the absence of permission warranted the demand for duty and penalty. The Tribunal highlighted the distinction between substantive and procedural conditions, stating that failure to fulfill procedural conditions might not always lead to adverse consequences.

3. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant's failure to obtain permission was a violation of procedures. However, considering that the appellant was entitled to conduct the job work and that the permission might have been granted if sought, the Tribunal set aside the duty, interest, and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules was upheld but reduced to Rs. 2,000. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal accordingly.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that while procedural lapses occurred, the absence of permission did not justify the imposition of duty and interest. The Tribunal's decision focused on the distinction between substantive and procedural compliance, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the duty demand and a reduction in the penalty amount.