2016 (6) TMI 569 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance of electrical goods to DMRC - Availability of notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 as amended by Notification No. 29/2003-CE dated 10.4.2003 denied - exemption denied on the ground that only duplicate copy of the certificate was provided and original copy was not submitted - Held that - Having gone through the conditions attached to the notification, we find that there is nothing in the said condition to suggest that original copy should be sent to the Revenue. The condition is only to the effect that If before the clearance of the goods, the manufacturer produces to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, a certificate from the Chairman or the Managing Director of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. to the effect that (i) the goods are procured by or on behalf of the Delhi Metrol Rail Corporation Ltd. for use in the Delhi MRTS Projects; and . We agree with the learned advocate that in the absence of any direction in the said condition, requiring the assessee to send the original copy to the Revenue, the technical and procedural objection raised by the Revenue, cannot be upheld. Not only that, it is seen that appellant subsequently produced the original copy of the certificate even before the passing of the order by the Deputy Commissioner. In these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner could have taken note of the original copy of the certificate and could have allowed the benefit to the assessee. Such raising of technical or procedural objection by the Revenue only reflects upon their anxiety to confirm the demands. We also note that it is not the Revenue s case that certificate produced by the appellant is not reflecting the factual position and is not correct. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Availability of exemption under notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 as amended by Notification No. 29/2003-CE dated 10.4.2003 based on the submission of an original certificate before the clearance of goods.

Analysis:
The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the interpretation of notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 as amended by Notification No. 29/2003-CE dated 10.4.2003, which exempts specified goods from excise duty subject to fulfillment of specified conditions. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing cables and wires, were required to produce a certificate from the Chairman or Manager of DMRC before clearance of goods to avail of the exemption.

The Deputy Commissioner denied the benefit of the exemption to the appellants as the original certificate was not produced before the clearance of goods, leading to a demand of ?3,50,477 along with interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the requirement of producing the original certificate before clearance, as per the conditions of the notification.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's objection regarding the non-submission of the original certificate before clearance was unfounded. The Tribunal highlighted that the notification did not explicitly mandate sending the original certificate to the Revenue, and the technical objection raised by the Revenue was unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had indeed submitted the original certificate before the Deputy Commissioner's order, and the Revenue's procedural objection seemed aimed at confirming demands rather than assessing the factual accuracy of the certificate.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referenced a previous order in the same appellant's case where a similar objection by the Revenue was dismissed. Given the circumstances and the absence of any discrepancy in the certificate's content, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. This decision underscores the importance of a contextual interpretation of notification conditions and emphasizes the need for Revenue to focus on substance over technicalities in such matters.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's analysis highlights the significance of adherence to notification conditions, balanced with a pragmatic approach to procedural requirements to ensure fairness in excise duty matters.