2017 (3) TMI 993 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of benefit of N/N. 6/2006-CE - International Competitive Bidding - whether for the clearances made during the period April, 2006 to November, 2006, as the appellant had wrongly claimed exemption under N/N. 108/95-CE and later on, on realizing his mistake he prayed before the authority that his claim of exemption be read in terms of N/N. 6/2006-CE, Whether the denial of claim is sustainable? - Held that - the SCN is misconceived. No case of any retrospective claim is made out from the SCN. It is evident on the face of record that the appellant had only rectified his claim which was earlier made under N/N. 108/95 to the correct Notification being N/N. 6/2006-CE. Thus, there is no case of any retrospective claim - Secondly, N/N. 6/2006 is of dated 01/03/2006 and the clearance were made thereafter and on this count also there is no question of any retrospective applicability of the said Notification - SCN unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 6/2006-CE.
2. Claim of exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE.
3. Retrospective applicability of Notification No. 6/2006-CE.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of Steel Structures, appealed against the denial of benefit under Notification No. 6/2006-CE for goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding to a specific project. The core issue was whether the denial of the claim was justified, considering the appellant's initial claim under Notification No. 108/95-CE and subsequent correction to claim under Notification No. 6/2006-CE. The appellant initially cleared goods under Nil rate of Excise duty based on a mistaken belief under Notification No. 108/95-CE but later rectified the claim under Notification No. 6/2006-CE. The Department contended that the change of Notification for the claim could only have a prospective effect. The Order-in-Original confirmed the demand and imposed penalties under Rule 25 of CER, 2002.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the show cause notice lacked objections regarding the eligibility of the appellant under Notification No. 6/2006-CE. The Revenue's sole objection was related to the retrospective effect of the appellant's claim under the said notification. The Tribunal determined that the appellant merely rectified their claim from Notification No. 108/95-CE to Notification No. 6/2006-CE without any retrospective element. As Notification No. 6/2006-CE was dated 01/03/2006 and the clearances were made thereafter, there was no question of retrospective applicability. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Share Medical Care vs. Union of India, the Tribunal emphasized that an applicant could claim benefits under a specific notification at a later stage, even if not initially claimed. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the show cause notice unsustainable, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Order-in-Original, entitling the appellant to consequential benefits as per the law. The judgment was delivered in an open court setting.