2017 (9) TMI 616 - HC - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 214/86 and N/N. 208/83 - denial on the ground that the procedure required to avail the benefit of notification not followed - Whether the CESTAT, Mumbai was correct in holding that the applicant is not eligible for the benefit of N/N. 208/83 and/or 214/86 as the case may be and the duty as confirmed is payable though the documentary evidence to prove the eligibility of exemption are available with the department? - Held that - the assessee failed to establish that the procedure required to be followed for availing the benefit of notifications was actually followed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment of CESTAT, eligibility for benefit of notifications 208/83 and 214/86, correct classification of goods, rejection of appeal by Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the judgment of CESTAT dated 13.10.2005, raising a substantial question of law regarding the eligibility for the benefit of notifications 208/83 and 214/86. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing forgings of iron and steel, exceeded the exemption limit of &8377; 15 lakhs, leading to a demand for duty on goods cleared in excess. The Commissioner confirmed the duty and penalty, which was challenged by the appellant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the proceedings to the adjudicating authority for correct classification, which was later determined to fall under entry 72.08. The appellant sought the benefit of notifications, but the Commissioner rejected the claim citing non-compliance with the required procedures. The Tribunal, in the impugned judgment, rejected the appeal primarily on the grounds of ongoing proceedings for correct classification, stating the appellant could not claim the benefit of notifications.

The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's view, emphasizing that the remand order did not restrict the appellant's right to claim the benefit of notifications if eligible. However, the Commissioner had already considered the notifications and rejected the claim due to the appellant's failure to prove compliance with the necessary procedures. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision to deny the benefit of notifications based on non-compliance with procedural requirements.