2019 (3) TMI 661 - AT - Central Excise

Area Based exemption denied - N/N. 49-50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 - mandatory declaration has been filed by the appellant or not? - communication from General Manager, District Industries Centre, Shimla, whether taken as intimation in terms of notification or not? - Held that - Admittedly, the appellant has failed to bring any documents on record to show that they have filed mandatory declaration in terms of the Notification No. 49-50/2003 dated 10.0602003. In that circumstances, issue No. 1 is answered against the appellant as there is no documentary evidence on record - Further, the communication received from General Manager, District Industries Centre, Shimla has been placed on record dated 16.10.2008 wherein the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Shimla has sent a communication to Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Mukund Nivas, Panthagarh, Shimla which certified that the appellant has started a unit of Harbal Cosmatic in the state of Himachal Pradesh, this fact has not been denied by the Revenue with any cogent evidence. Therefore, the said communication is to be taken as the date of intimation to the department in term of Notification No. 49-50/2003 dated 10.06.2003. As it was in the knowledge of the department that the appellant has installed a unit of Harbal Cosmatic in the state of Himachal Pradesh, through intimation by General Manager, District Industries Centre, Shimla dated 16.10.2008 - the appellant is entitled for the exemption of the said notification w.e.f. 16.10.2008. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of duty due to denial of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 49-50/2003 dated 10.06.2003.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Mandatory Declaration for Exemption

The appellant failed to provide evidence of filing the mandatory declaration required to claim exemption under Notification No. 49-50/2003 dated 10.06.2003. The appellant's argument that a consultant might have filed the declaration, but no record was available, was not substantiated. The absence of documentary proof led to a ruling against the appellant on this issue.

Issue 2: Communication from General Manager, District Industries Centre

A communication dated 16.10.2008 from the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Shimla, confirmed the establishment of the appellant's unit for Harbal Cosmetics. The Revenue did not provide any substantial evidence to refute this communication. The tribunal considered this communication as the intimation required under Notification No. 49-50/2003 dated 10.06.2003, thereby supporting the appellant's claim for exemption from 16.10.2008 onwards.

Precedent and Legal Interpretation

The tribunal referred to a previous case, Indica Industries Pvt Ltd, where compliance with notification conditions was analyzed. The tribunal emphasized that the department had been adequately informed about the unit's existence, products manufactured, and exemptions claimed. Drawing parallels, the tribunal concluded that the appellant's situation warranted exemption from 16.10.2008 and SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 for the period before that date. Consequently, no duty demand was deemed sustainable against the appellant.

Conclusion

In light of the above analysis, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any necessary consequential relief. The judgment, delivered on 15.02.2019 by Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH, favored the appellant based on the lack of evidence for mandatory declaration and the acceptance of the communication from the General Manager, District Industries Centre as valid intimation for exemption under the relevant notification.