2018 (9) TMI 484 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance of the goods required for Ministry of New and Renewable Energy - Benefit of N/N. 15/2010 dated 26.02.2010 - Subsequent N/N. 26/2012 dated 08.05.2012 - Held that - The earlier notification has been modified by the subsequent notification, which is beneficial in nature and, therefore, it has to be given retrospective effect - Appeal allowed. Penalty u/r 26 of the CER - Held that - Penalty on N.K. Khanna, Director set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 15/2010 dated 26.02.2010 regarding benefit for Ministry of New and Renewable Energy.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order upholding a previous decision. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 15/2010, which allowed clearance of goods for the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy under specific conditions. The conditions included the production of a certificate from a designated officer and an undertaking from the manufacturer regarding the use of the goods. The manufacturer failed to produce the required certificate, leading the Revenue to deny the benefit.

Upon review, it was noted that Notification No. 15/2010 had been amended by Notification No. 26/2012, altering the conditions for availing the exemption. The amended notification required a recommendation from a government official and an undertaking from the project's Chief Executive Officer. This change aimed to address the practical difficulties faced by manufacturers in meeting the initial requirements.

The Tribunal considered the amended notification as clarificatory and decided to give it retrospective effect. The retrospective application was deemed necessary due to the beneficial nature of the amendment and in line with established legal principles. The Tribunal concluded that the subsequent notification should guide the clearance process, superseding the previous version. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

In a related matter, a penalty imposed on the Director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules was also discussed. Since the appeal was allowed based on its merits, the penalty on the Director was set aside accordingly. The decision was made after thorough consideration of the facts and circumstances presented in the appeal records, ensuring a fair and just outcome for all parties involved.