2018 (1) TMI 1580 - AT - Central Excise

Interpretation of statute - N/N. 15/2010-C.E., dated 27-2-2010 - whether the Condition No. 2 of Notification No. 15/2010-C.E., dated 27-2-2010 is required to be fulfilled before the goods are cleared and can be fulfilled subsequently even after the goods are cleared? - HELD THAT - The wording of Notification clearly established that even after the clearance of the goods undertaking could be submitted by the appellant. Therefore, the contention of revenue is that before the goods were cleared undertaking was to be given cannot be considered to be as per law. In view of the above interpretation of said condition No. 2, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by Revenue. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Condition No. 2 of Notification No. 15/2010-C.E. - Whether fulfillment of Condition No. 2 is required before or after goods clearance.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD was against Order-in-Appeal No. GZB/EXCUS/000/APP/216/2014-15 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals-II), Meerut at Noida. The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Condition No. 2 of Notification No. 15/2010-C.E., dated 27-2-2010. The question at hand was whether the fulfillment of this condition was necessary before the goods are cleared or if it could be fulfilled subsequently even after the goods are cleared.

The respondent in the case failed to fulfill the second condition of the notification, which required furnishing an undertaking to the Jurisdictional Central Excise Assistant Commissioner regarding the specific use of the goods. Consequently, a demand of &8377;12,35,209/- was raised for December 2011. Although the original authority confirmed the demand, the respondent later complied with the notification requirements. By the time the appeal was filed before the Learned Commissioner (Appeals), both conditions of the notification were met by the respondent. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that since the second condition was fulfilled before the appeal was heard, the respondent was eligible for the notification's benefit. This decision led to the revenue challenging the order before the Tribunal.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal focused on the wording of condition No. 2 of the notification. The clause stated that in case of failure to observe the conditions, the duty payable at the time of goods clearance would be levied. The Tribunal's interpretation was that an undertaking could be submitted even after the goods were cleared, as per the wording of the condition. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's argument that the undertaking had to be given before goods clearance. Consequently, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed, and the respondent was entitled to consequential relief in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the interpretation of the timing of fulfilling Condition No. 2 of the notification, ultimately ruling that the condition could be met even after goods clearance based on the wording of the notification.