2017 (5) TMI 808 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - manufacture of Metering Panels, CT/PT Tank, Tank Fabrication, CSP Transformer etc. falling under Chapter 85 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - The allegation of the Department is that, the assessee-Respondents has not informed them about the DTA sale and raised differential duty demand of ₹ 12,48,021/- along with interest and penalty - Held that - the only issue involved is that the assessee-Respondents have not informed the Department well within time about the DTA sale - the mistake was just merely a procedural one which was rectified later - demand set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against order-in-appeal dated 20.09.2010 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur for the period May 2007 to September 2007.

Analysis:
The case involved the Department appealing against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. The assessee-Respondents, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing various goods falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, were granted permission to convert into a 100% EOU for manufacturing and exporting specified goods. Subsequently, they were also permitted DTA sale of additional items. The Department alleged that the assessee did not inform them about the DTA sale, leading to a demand of differential duty, interest, and penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand, citing it as a procedural mistake. The main issue was the failure to inform the Department about the DTA sale in a timely manner.

During the hearing, both sides presented their arguments. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was highlighted that procedural lapses should not overshadow substantive benefits, especially when exports have taken place. The Tribunal also cited a Supreme Court case emphasizing that procedure should not be used to deny justice. In this case, it was determined that the mistake was procedural and was rectified later, as acknowledged by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and upheld it along with the reasons provided.

In conclusion, the Department's appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the procedural mistake related to the DTA sale notification. The judgment emphasized the importance of distinguishing between substantive requirements and procedural lapses, ensuring that justice is not denied due to procedural errors.