2018 (8) TMI 1395 - HC - Central Excise

Substantial expansion of industries - North Eastern Region - N/N. 32/99-Central Excise dated 08.07.1999 - application for Special Rate for the financial year 2009-2010 submitted on 23.09.2009 received by the Commissioner on 30.09.2009 - benefit of notification was denied that this application was filed delayed. Held that - Keeping in view the benefit extended to the North Eastern Region, hyper technical approach shall not be in keeping with its object. The substantive condition is that the appellant must have filed application up to 30th September, which the appellant has - The Notification No.31/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008 only provide for filing of an application not later than 30th day of September. There is no condition that the supporting documents are to be filed up to 30th day of September of the year - Plain reading suggests that the substantive condition is to file the application up to 30th September of the financial year. The filing of supporting documents subsequent thereto will not negate the competence of the application having been filed within the date i.e. 30th September. The appellant has made it clear that he has submitted his application on 23.09.2009 which was received by the respondent-Commissioner of Central Excise on 30.09.2009. However, supporting documents could not be submitted in view of non-availability of the auditor due to his sickness. In absence of supporting documents, the application of the appellant was filed within time. Filing of supporting documents is simply a procedure therefore late filing of documents, will not destroy the right of the appellant. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong for deciding the original application of the appellant regarding the claim on its merits.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the application for "Special Rate" under Notification No.31/2008-CE.
2. Substantial compliance versus procedural requirements.
3. Applicability of the doctrine of substantial compliance.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Timeliness of the Application for "Special Rate" under Notification No.31/2008-CE:
The primary issue revolves around whether the appellant's application for the "Special Rate" was filed within the permissible time frame. The appellant submitted the application on 23.09.2009, which was received by the Commissioner on 30.09.2009. However, the supporting documents were only submitted on 13.01.2010. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, rejected the application on the grounds of late submission, a decision upheld by the CESTAT. The court noted that the substantive requirement was to file the application by 30th September, which the appellant complied with. The supporting documents, considered procedural, were not required to be filed by the same date.

2. Substantial Compliance Versus Procedural Requirements:
The court emphasized the doctrine of substantial compliance, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in "Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner" and "Commissioner of C.EX., New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal." The court argued that the substantive condition was the timely filing of the application, not the supporting documents. The delay in submitting supporting documents due to the auditor's sickness was deemed a procedural lapse, not affecting the application's validity.

3. Applicability of the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance:
The doctrine of substantial compliance was central to the court's decision. The court highlighted that the doctrine is designed to avoid undue hardship when a party has substantially met the requirements, even if there are minor procedural lapses. The court found that the appellant had met the substantive requirement by filing the application on time and that the late submission of supporting documents did not negate this compliance. The court referenced its earlier decision in "M/s Mawthlliang Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong," reinforcing that non-filing of supporting documents with the application should not be considered fatal.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, and the CESTAT, Kolkatta, deeming them unsustainable. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, for a merits-based decision on the appellant's original application. The appeal was thus allowed, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between substantive and procedural requirements and the application of the doctrine of substantial compliance.