2018 (3) TMI 910 - AT - Central Excise

Area based exemption - N/N. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - rejection on the ground that the Divisional Assistant Commissioner did not receive copy of declaration, required to be filed under the said Notification by a unit availing the benefit of such Notification - Held that - Commissioner had acknowledged a receipt of declaration on 20.10.2009 by the respondent through the said letter dated 05.12.2011. This fact was stated by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his order - appeal filed by Revenue did not contest the said fact - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 597-CE/MRT-II/2011 dated 23/12/2011.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut-II. The case revolved around the respondent's alleged failure to file a declaration required under Notification No.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003. The respondent claimed to have sent the declaration via registered post and UPC, meeting the notification requirements. The Original authority rejected the claim, citing the photocopy acknowledgment from Postal authorities as inadmissible evidence, leading to a confirmed demand and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered a communication from the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, acknowledging the receipt of the declaration on 20.10.2009. Based on this acknowledgment, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original dated 24.08.2011, prompting the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.

One of the key contentions raised by Revenue was the admissibility of the photocopy acknowledgment issued by Postal authorities. After hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had indeed acknowledged the receipt of the declaration on 20.10.2009, as mentioned in the letter dated 05.12.2011. The Tribunal observed that the appeal filed by Revenue did not challenge this fact. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in Revenue's grounds and decided not to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned Order-in-Appeal and dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue. The cross objection was also disposed of in the same judgment.