2012 (3) TMI 249 - AT - Central Excise

Notification No. 49/2003-CE was mentioned instead of Notification No. 50/2003-CE - a declaration in terms of Notification No. 49/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 was filed by the appellant - the exemption under the notification shall exercise his option in writing before effecting the first clearance and since a declaration to Notification 50/2003-CE was not made its exemption cannot be claimed - Appellant contented that Notification No. 49/2003-CE was filed by mistake instead of 50/2003-CE - Held that - It is well settled law that the substantive benefit if otherwise available should not be disallowed on the basis of minor procedural irregularities - the fact that Notification No. 49/2003-CE was mentioned instead of Notification No. 50/2003-CE, cannot be considered to be a mistake fatal to the appellant s claim of benefit. Hence exemption is allowed to be claimed under Notification No. 50/2003-CE.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of area-based exemption notification.
2. Dispute regarding the correct notification number mentioned in the declaration.
3. Procedural mistake in filing the declaration and its impact on claiming the exemption.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE, an area-based exemption notification, to the appellant. The High Court directed the appellant to file an appeal before the Tribunal along with a stay petition, restraining the department from collecting excise duty until the stay application is decided. However, subsequent proceedings confirmed the demand of duty, leading to a challenge of the impugned order. The Tribunal found no justifiable reason to stay the operation of the order due to the raised and confirmed demand.

2. The main issue in the appeal was the discrepancy in the declaration filed by the appellant. The appellant, located in Uttarakhand, inadvertently mentioned Notification No. 49/2003-CE instead of the correct Notification No. 50/2003-CE in their declaration. This led to proceedings proposing denial of the exemption based on the incorrect notification number. The Commissioner held that the appellant was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE due to the procedural mistake in the declaration.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the situation and concluded that the appellant's substantive compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 50/2003-CE should not be overshadowed by a minor procedural mistake in mentioning the notification number. It was emphasized that the purpose of filing a declaration is to notify the revenue of the appellant's intention to avail the exemption, and in this case, the essential requirement of filing a declaration was fulfilled, despite the incorrect notification number. The Tribunal held that the substantial benefit of the notification should not be denied based on procedural irregularities and allowed the appeal, setting aside the order disallowing the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE.

In summary, the judgment addressed the denial of an area-based exemption notification to the appellant due to a procedural mistake in the declaration. The Tribunal emphasized that substantive compliance should prevail over minor procedural errors and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the benefit of the correct notification.