2024 (11) TMI 545 - AT - Central Excise

Area Based Exemption - substantial expansion - circumstantial evidence to prove the eligibility is on record or not - whether the appellants are eligible for the exemption contained under N/N. 49-50/2003 dated 10.06.2003? - Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts. HELD THAT - It is found from the records that the appellant has started production on 30.03.2002 as can be seen from the application for approval of revised capacity after undertaking substantial expansion. Therefore, the contention of the Department that the increased capacity of production was effective from 30.03.2002 whereas the Notification required substantial expansion of capacity on or after 7th day of January, 2003. In view of the same, the circumstantial evidence does not indicate that the appellants have commenced increased production after substantial expansion on or after the appointed date. Coming to the declaration dated 25.11.2006, it is found that District Industry Centre vide Certificate dated 23rd November 2006 has certified the substantial expansion and increased production capacity. Therefore, even assuming that the declaration dated 25.11.2006 was not given by the appellants, substantial compliance of the conditions of the Notification and therefore has rendered themselves eligible for the exemption Notification. Learned Commissioner though acknowledges the fact of their eligibility denies the same on the basis of a letter dated 11.12.2007, purported to have been written by the appellants to the effect that they are availing SSI exemption and are not availing the said Notification - In the instant case, the appellants claim that they have filed declaration dated 25.11.2006 though they could not produce the acknowledgement for the same. This is a mere procedural violation which should not come in the way of allowing the benefit of the exemption Notification. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the appellants are eligible for the exemption Notification from 25.11.2006. Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts - HELD THAT - The Department did not establish evidence to allege intent to evade payment of duty. This is more conspicuous due to the fact that the appellants are otherwise eligible for SSI exemption. Therefore, the extended period cannot be invoked. Accordingly, the penalties imposed under Section 11AC are also liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.49-50/2003-CE.
2. Compliance with the conditions of the exemption notification.
3. Invocation of the extended period for demand.
4. Imposition of penalties under Section 11AC.
5. Department's appeal against the extension of exemption from 12.11.2008.
6. Cum-duty benefit applicability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No.49-50/2003-CE:

The primary issue was whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the exemption under Notification No.49-50/2003-CE. The appellants contended that they had undertaken substantial expansion effective from 08.01.2003 and 23.08.2006, which should entitle them to the exemption. They claimed to have filed declarations indicating their intent to avail the exemption, but the acknowledgments were allegedly destroyed by an employee. The adjudicating authority allowed the exemption from 12.11.2008, based on the date of the declaration filed, but the appellants argued for an earlier date.

The tribunal found that the appellants had achieved substantial expansion by 25% as certified by the District Industry Centre on 23.11.2006, and thus were eligible for the exemption from 25.11.2006. The tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses, such as the absence of acknowledgment, should not bar the exemption when substantial compliance was evident.

2. Compliance with the Conditions of the Exemption Notification:

The Department argued that the appellants did not meet the conditions of the notification as there was no substantial expansion before 23.08.2006. The tribunal, however, found that substantial compliance was achieved with the expansion certified by the District Industry Centre. The tribunal held that the right to avail the exemption could not be denied due to procedural lapses, especially when there was no evidence of intent to evade duty.

3. Invocation of the Extended Period for Demand:

The tribunal examined whether the extended period for demand could be invoked. The appellants argued that there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, as they were in continuous correspondence with the Department. The tribunal agreed, noting the absence of evidence for intent to evade duty and the fact that the appellants were eligible for SSI exemption. Thus, the extended period could not be invoked.

4. Imposition of Penalties under Section 11AC:

Given the finding that the extended period could not be invoked, the tribunal set aside the penalties imposed under Section 11AC. The absence of intent to evade duty was a key factor in this decision.

5. Department's Appeal Against the Extension of Exemption from 12.11.2008:

The Department appealed against the adjudicating authority's decision to allow exemption from 12.11.2008. The tribunal, however, held that the appellants were eligible for exemption from 25.11.2006, rendering the Department's appeal on this point moot. The tribunal found no merit in the Department's contention, as the appellants had demonstrated substantial compliance.

6. Cum-duty Benefit Applicability:

The Department contested the extension of cum-duty benefit to the appellants. However, the tribunal found that since the appellants were entitled to exemption from 25.11.2006 and the extended period was not applicable, the issue of cum-duty benefit did not affect the case's outcome.

Conclusion:

The tribunal partially allowed the appellants' appeal, granting exemption from 25.11.2006, and set aside the penalties. The Department's appeal was rejected. The decision underscored the importance of substantial compliance over procedural lapses in the context of exemption notifications.