2016 (3) TMI 131 - AT - Central Excise

Eligibility for exemption Notification No. 108/95 dated 28.08.1995 on sutures cleared to the Government under the project funded by the World Bank - Held that - The purpose of the beneficial notification is for the successful implementation of various welfare measures which are intended to be carried out bearing in mind the laudable spirit which in this case is that the project was for controlling the cataract blindness Taking cognizance of the sore fact that the victims of cataract blindness in this country is registering staggering height, year after year. As vision in the eyes is of paramount importance, than any other limbs to the human beings, bestowing sufficient concentration on this vital aspect should receive the utmost attention of the authorities by being liberal in passing benefits of such notifications. Any attempt to deny such benefits on technical grounds would contribute to the alarming growth in loss of vision, which no progressive society can afford. Keeping this in mind, the solitary ground that led to the denial of the benefit under the said notification was that the certificate was not countersigned by an Officer of stipulated rank viz., not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India. In the instant case, the said certificate had been signed by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India. There is understandably difference between an unsigned certificate and a certificate which was signed but not countersigned. Taking into the account the well settled principle that procedural infirmities such as the present one should not be allowed to the extent of denying the very benefit offered by the above said notification which is beneficial in nature, and only granting, rather than non-granting, will be in consonance with the legislative intent. Thus the appellants are eligible for exemption Notification No. 108/95 dated 28.08.1995 on sutures cleared to the Government under the project funded by the World Bank - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Notification No. 108/95 - Non-compliance with conditions for duty exemption.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant filed a refund claim for duty paid on sutures supplied to a project financed by the World Bank under Notification No. 108/95. The claim was rejected due to discrepancies, including failure to produce required certificates and documents before clearance of goods.

2. The Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) both denied the refund claim, emphasizing the necessity of producing the certificate before goods clearance and proper countersignature by an authorized officer, as mandated by the notification.

3. The Appellant argued that they were entitled to the exemption, citing changes in central excise duty regulations and possession of a certificate from the Project Implementing Authority. They also referred to relevant case law to support their claim.

4. The Tribunal noted that the goods were supplied for a project aimed at controlling cataract blindness, a critical public health issue. The denial of exemption solely on the grounds of lack of countersignature by a Joint Secretary was seen as overly technical and against the spirit of the beneficial notification.

5. The Tribunal distinguished previous case laws cited by the Revenue, highlighting the substantial compliance with the notification's requirements in the present case, except for the specific rank of the officer's countersignature.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the Appellant was eligible for the duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95 for the sutures supplied to the World Bank-funded project. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting relief to the Appellant in accordance with the law.

This comprehensive analysis delves into the procedural and substantive aspects of the case, highlighting the Tribunal's reasoning behind allowing the appeal and granting the duty exemption to the Appellant.