2018 (5) TMI 1336 - AT - Central Excise

Area Based Exemption - N/N. 50/2003-CX dated 10/06/2003 - case of Revenue is that the options dated 29/03/2010 and 31/03/2010 have been received in this office on 06/04/2010 i.e. after 31/03/2003 which was the last date for exercising the said option, the benefit under the said Notifications is not admissible to the goods - Held that - intimation is required to be given to the AC/DC as well as to Superintendent - In the present case intimation to the Superintendent had admittedly been given before the due date i.e. 31/03/2010 - the receipt of intimation in the Range Office is sufficient to claim the exemption from the payment of duty on goods mentioned in the intimation dated 31/03/2010 - benefit of exemption allowed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of conditions for availing area-based exemption under Notification No.50/2003-CX.
2. Timeliness of filing options for exemption and its impact on eligibility.
3. Compliance with notification requirements regarding intimation to the jurisdictional authorities.
4. Applicability of Board Circular dated 20/12/2010 on the case.
5. Consideration of relevant case laws in determining eligibility for exemption.

Issue 1 - Interpretation of Conditions for Availing Exemption:
The case involved the interpretation of conditions for availing area-based exemption under Notification No.50/2003-CX. The appellant had filed options to avail the exemption, but there was a dispute regarding the timeliness of these filings and their impact on eligibility for the exemption.

Issue 2 - Timeliness of Filing Options and Eligibility:
The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner noted that certain options were received after the specified deadline, leading to a denial of the exemption for specific goods. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, considering the timely receipt of one option in the Range office as fulfilling the conditions for exemption.

Issue 3 - Compliance with Notification Requirements:
The Notification required manufacturers to inform the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise before the first clearance to avail the exemption. The Tribunal found that the intimation to the Superintendent before the due date sufficed, upholding the exemption for goods mentioned in the timely intimation.

Issue 4 - Applicability of Board Circular and Case Laws:
The respondent cited a Board Circular dated 20/12/2010 allowing additions in products even after the deadline. Additionally, they referenced specific Tribunal decisions to support their case, arguing that their situation aligned with precedents and circular provisions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, ruling in favor of the respondent-assessee. They determined that the timely intimation to the Range Office sufficed for claiming the exemption, dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the compliance with notification requirements and relevant legal interpretations. The respondent was deemed entitled to consequential relief as per the law.