2017 (5) TMI 1078 - AT - Central Excise

Area based exemption - N/N. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - manufacture of plastic film printed and laminated in roll form and plastic film printed and laminated in pouch form - denial on the ground that declaration not filed by assessee - Held that - in the assessee s own case, the matter has come up before the Tribunal PACKAGING INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT 2012 (2) TMI 424 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that The requirement of filing a declaration is a procedural condition, and exemption cannot be denied on this basis - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 111/2011 dated 28.04.2011 regarding area-based exemption under notification no. 50/2003-CE for manufacturing plastic film printed and laminated in roll form and pouch form.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Department against the Order-in-Appeal No. 111/2011 dated 28.04.2011, concerning the respondent's claim for area-based exemption under notification no. 50/2003-CE for manufacturing plastic film printed and laminated in roll form and pouch form. The Commissioner (A) had allowed the claim, which was denied by the Department, leading to the present appeal. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and examined the records, noting a previous case involving the appellant's unit where the issue of incomplete declaration under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. was discussed. It was observed that the appellant had provided sufficient information, including a lease deed mentioning the plot's location within the industrial park. The jurisdictional Superintendent's verification report confirmed the appellant's eligibility for the exemption. The Tribunal distinguished the current case from a Supreme Court judgment, emphasizing that the clerical error in mentioning the notification number did not render the appellant ineligible for the exemption.

The Tribunal highlighted that the core issue was whether the appellant met the eligibility conditions for exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. It criticized the Adjudicating Commissioner for focusing on technicalities related to the notification number rather than the appellant's eligibility. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant, despite a clerical error in the declaration, was found eligible for the exemption after field verification. It noted that the Department did not contest the appellant's eligibility at any stage. Relying on previous judicial decisions, including a High Court ruling, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that the appellant should not be denied the exemption benefit due to a clerical mistake when eligibility was established. Consequently, the Department's appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was sustained based on the judicial precedents and the appellant's fulfillment of eligibility criteria under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E.