2016 (9) TMI 185 - HC - Central Excise

Fixation of Special Rate of the Actual Value Addition in terms of Notification No.20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 - Commissioner rejected the application only on the ground of period of limitation - Held that - Commissioner of Excise, Shillong has failed to examine the reasons assigned by the petitioner and has also failed to consider the requirements that ordinarily, the matters are preferred to be decided on merits rather than on technicalities. The petitioner had given out all the reasons in a forthright manner wherefor the application could not be filed in the office of the Commissioner by 30.09.2015. In any case, the application was indeed filed in the office of the Commissioner on 01.10.2015. So far supporting documents are concerned, mere non-filing of the same with the application could not have been taken as fatal to the cause nor the application could have been declined on that ground alone, particularly when such documents/records were also presented on 16.10.2015 i.e., within 15 days of moving the application and well within the period of 30 days, the extent to which the Commissioner has been authorized to condone the delay and to consider the matter on merits. In the totality of circumstances, the respondent has rightly not attempted to justify the order impugned that does not carry the requisite reasons and requisite consideration. Therefore, the application moved by the petitioner for Fixation of Special Rate, as presented on 01.10.2015 and supported by the documents/records filed on 16.10.2015, is restored for consideration of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong and for disposal by way of a reasoned and speaking order on merits. - Decided in favour of petitioner

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to rejection of application for fixation of special rate of actual value addition under Notification No.20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 due to time-limit bar.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Fixation of Special Rate:
The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of Veneer, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its application for 'Fixation of Special Rate of the Actual Value Addition' under Notification No.20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner rejected the application on the grounds of being time-barred as per the stipulated deadline of 30th September in a financial year for making such applications.

2. Reasons for Rejection:
The Commissioner found that the petitioner's application was submitted on 01.10.2015, missing the deadline, and failed to provide convincing reasons for the delay. The Commissioner emphasized that the applicant did not demonstrate any sufficient cause that prevented the timely submission of the application. Consequently, the application for the Financial Year 2015-16 was rejected based on the time-limit bar.

3. Petitioner's Contentions:
The petitioner argued that the application was actually submitted on 30.09.2015 to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise but was later realized that it should have been filed in the Commissioner's office. The delay in filing the application in the Commissioner's office was attributed to the closure of the Receipt Section on 30.09.2015. Additionally, the submission of required documents was delayed due to the petitioner's Chartered Accountant's constraints caused by the extension of the due date for Income Tax return.

4. Court's Decision:
Upon careful consideration, the Court found that the Commissioner failed to assess the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay and did not adequately consider the matter on its merits. The Court noted that the application was eventually filed on 01.10.2015 and supported by the necessary documents on 16.10.2015, well within the 30-day period for condoning delays and considering the matter on its merits. The Court emphasized that decisions should be based on merits rather than technicalities.

5. Court's Ruling:
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 28.01.2016 and restored the petitioner's application for Fixation of Special Rate for consideration by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Commissioner on a specified date for further proceedings. The Court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing that the order should be reasoned and based on merits, rather than technicalities.

Conclusion:
The judgment highlights the importance of considering applications on their merits rather than technicalities and emphasizes the need for reasoned decisions in administrative matters. The Court's ruling serves as a reminder for authorities to evaluate cases thoroughly and fairly, taking into account all relevant circumstances before making determinations.