2016 (12) TMI 1050 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of exemption under N/N. 11/88-CE - The authority held that activity carried out by the appellant was manufacturing and to claim exemption on clearances to 100% EOU, it should have followed the conditions prescribed under Notification No. 11/88-CE strictly - the appellant was not registered although it was manufacturing twisted yarn of various counts and ID yarn of various colours and twisted yarn of polyester out of duty paid single yarn in various counts and cleared the same without payment of duty. No procedure of excise law was followed nor registration taken. Returns were also not filed. Held that - The extent of examination done by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) exhibits that he was quite aware of the matter in controversy before him and the manner and reasoning of his decision also exhibits his application of mind. He has held that when the manufacturing activity was carried out, the assesse ought to have fulfilled the conditions of the notification to avail benefit of law. That not being done, the exemption claimed in respect of clearances to 100% EOU was denied - For no good reasons stated in the grounds of appeal except bringing out a calculation of the clearances by the appellant, we agree with the finding and conclusion of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals)- appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues: Compliance with excise law for claiming exemption under Notification No. 11/88-CE.

In this case, the appellant was involved in manufacturing twisted yarn and ID yarn without following excise law procedures or registration requirements. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, granting only cum-duty benefit. The appellate authority upheld this decision, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with conditions for availing benefits under Notification No. 11/88-CE. The authority referred to various judicial precedents, including the Apex Court's decisions in Eagle Flask Industries and CCE, New Delhi Vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal, stressing the significance of adherence to excise law requirements when claiming exemptions. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) thoroughly examined the matter and concluded that the appellant failed to fulfill the necessary conditions for claiming the exemption, resulting in the denial of the exemption claimed for clearances to 100% EOU. The appellate tribunal, finding no valid reasons in the appellant's grounds of appeal, dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) based on the lack of compliance with excise law requirements.

This judgment highlights the critical importance of strict compliance with excise law procedures and registration requirements when seeking exemptions under relevant notifications. The decision underscores that failure to adhere to these conditions can lead to the denial of claimed benefits, as evidenced by the denial of exemption in this case due to the appellant's non-compliance with excise law procedures. By referencing significant judicial precedents, the appellate authority reinforced the principle that compliance with statutory requirements is essential for availing exemptions and benefits under the law. The detailed analysis conducted by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the subsequent affirmation by the appellate tribunal demonstrate a consistent approach in upholding the necessity of fulfilling statutory conditions for claiming exemptions, thereby ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of the legal framework governing excise duties and exemptions.