2016 (11) TMI 687 - AT - Central Excise

Area based exemption - Benefit of notifications no.49/2003 and 50/2003 - Condition of filing of declaration - whether the denial of benefit of notification by the Revenue on the ground that declaration did not exist in Division Office, is justified? - Held that - reliance placed on the party s own case in CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Nalagarh Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (9) TMI 60 - CESTAT NEW DELHIwhere it was held that The whole idea of filing a declaration and choosing an option under intimation to the department is that the Revenue is put to notice. This intention having been fulfilled by the appellant in the months of July and August, 2003 would not result in denial of the benefit of notifications no.49/2003 and 50/2003, when the respondent fulfilled all the basics, essential and requisite conditions of the notifications as regards the location of the factory being in Himachal Pradesh. Such procedural contravention, if any, cannot result in denial of the substantive benefit of the notifications, if the same is otherwise available - denial of benefit not sustainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 23.12.2005 regarding availing benefit of notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute where the Respondents were availing benefits under a specific notification, which required the manufacturer to exercise the option in writing before the first clearance and not withdraw it during the financial year. The Commissioner dropped the demand for a certain period based on the production of a photocopy of the declaration dated 01.04.2004. The Revenue contested this, claiming subsequent verification showed the declaration did not exist in the office.

2. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. The Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal, stating that the declaration was not received in the Range office. However, a copy of the declaration with a receipt stamp dated 01.04.2004 was produced by the Respondent. After perusing the records and oral submissions, the Tribunal found that the declaration had indeed been filed by the Respondent, as confirmed by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in a letter dated 13.12.2005.

3. The Revenue's main contention was that the subsequent verification revealed the declaration was not available in the office, and no documentary evidence was provided to support their claims. Despite being directed to produce evidence, the Revenue failed to do so. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not challenge the authenticity of the receipt stamp on the party's letter or the verification report by the Assistant Commissioner.

4. The Tribunal also considered a previous case where the Tribunal had held that the filing of earlier declarations fulfilled the conditions of the notification, even if a fresh declaration was not filed after an amendment. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's objection and upheld the order passed by the Commissioner, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner's order was proper and legal, and therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The decision was pronounced in the open court, upholding the benefits availed by the Respondents under the notification in question.