2017 (8) TMI 1268 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 70/92-CE - Job-work - denial on the ground that the packing material was not covered under the said notification and their principal manufacturer had not filed the prescribed undertaking under the said notification - Held that - Since the supplier of raw material (Indian Ordnance Factories) has submitted an undertaking and the notification does not expressly prescribe that the undertaking should be furnished before or at the time of clearance of goods, we feel that there is substantial compliance of the condition of the notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No.70/92-CE regarding exclusion of packaging material, submission of required undertaking by the principal manufacturer, and the timeliness of such submission.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants engaged in manufacturing ammunition boxes on a job work basis for the Indian Ordnance Factory, availing benefits under Notification No.70/92-CE. A show cause notice alleged that the packing material was not covered under the notification and the principal manufacturer had not filed the prescribed undertaking. The demand was confirmed, leading to an appeal by the appellants against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Advocate for the appellants argued that the show cause notice lacked specificity in excluding the packaging material under the notification. He contended that the exclusion clauses did not apply in this case and cited previous judgments to support the remediable nature of the defect. Additionally, he argued that the demand was partly time-barred.

The AR contended that the submission of the undertaking was mandatory and had not been fulfilled by the appellants. He reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the ineligibility of the packing material under the notification.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the show cause notice did not specify the category under which the benefit of the notification was being denied, rendering the allegation inadequate and unclear. It was noted that the packaging material did not fall under the exclusion clauses of the notification. The Tribunal also emphasized that the submission of the undertaking by the principal manufacturer, albeit belated, demonstrated substantial compliance with the notification's conditions.

Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of not denying benefits due to administrative delays beyond the control of the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the allegations in the show cause notice were not sustainable, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowing the appeal filed by the appellant.