9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 9 - AT - Central ExciseCash Refund - para no. 2B of the N/N. 56/2002-CE dt. 14.11.2002 (as amended) - the sole ground to deny self credit to the appellants by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that condition of para 2C(d) of the N/N. 56/2002-CE is required to be complied strictly - Held that - Similar issue has recently come before this Tribunal in many cases and the Tribunal has taken the consistent view that condition 2C(d) is procedural in nature and for compliance with the said notification, delay cannot be fatal to the appellants. In the case of Eon Electrics Limited 2018 (7) TMI 778 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , where the appellants had availed the exemption N/N. 50/2003-CE dt. 10.06.2003, but did not file the required declaration before their first clearance. The Tribunal took the view that belated filing of declaration in the present case will not disentitle the appellants from the availment of the exemption under N/N. 50/2003-CE dt. 10.06.2003. The condition 2C(d) is procedural in nature and for compliance with the said notification, delay of seven days cannot be fatal to the appellants and the self credit taken by the appellants cannot be denied. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Procedural compliance with exemption Notification No. 56/2002-CE. 2. Consequences of delayed submission of statements for refund claims. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Procedural Compliance with Exemption Notification No. 56/2002-CE: The appellants are manufacturers of surfactants registered under the Central Excise and availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 56/2002-CE, which allows specified goods to be exempted from duty subject to certain conditions. The appellants began commercial production on 16.10.2004 and utilized the cash refund facility as per para 2B of the Notification. They filed a statement for the period April-June 2014, claiming a refund of Rs. 4,47,058/-, but submitted the statement seven days late. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, leading to the present appeal. The core issue is whether the delay in filing the statement, a procedural requirement under para 2C(d) of the Notification, should result in the denial of the exemption benefit. 2. Consequences of Delayed Submission of Statements for Refund Claims: The appellants argued that the delayed submission was merely procedural and should not negate their entitlement to the exemption. They cited multiple judicial pronouncements supporting the view that procedural delays should not be fatal to the substantive rights, including cases like Eon Electrics Limited vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I and PML Industries Ltd. vs. CCE. The Tribunal examined the conditions under para 2C(d), (e), and (f) of the Notification, which mandate timely submission of statements and the process for determining and adjusting the refundable amount. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been addressed in previous cases, consistently holding that procedural conditions should not override substantive rights. For instance, in Eon Electrics Limited, the Tribunal ruled that delayed filing of declarations did not disqualify the appellants from exemption benefits. Citing various precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Sambhaji vs. Gangabai and Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized the distinction between substantive and procedural conditions. It reiterated that procedural non-compliance, such as delayed filing, should not result in the denial of benefits if the substantive conditions are met. The Tribunal concluded that condition 2C(d) is procedural, and a seven-day delay in filing the statement should not disqualify the appellants from the exemption. Therefore, the self-credit taken by the appellants was deemed valid. Judgment: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeals, holding that procedural delays in complying with Notification No. 56/2002-CE should not negate the appellants' entitlement to the exemption benefits. The appeals were allowed, and the operative part of the judgment was pronounced in court.
|
