2015 (8) TMI 147 - AT - Central Excise

Refusal to grant of permission to remove the goods for further processing under Rule 16C of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for financial year 2015-16 - Held that - Appellant has been granted the permission under Rule 16C of the Rules to remove the goods without payment of duty for carrying out certain processes not amounting to manufacture from the financial year 2011-12 till 2014-15. The only ground for refusal to grant permission for the year 2015-16 as mentioned in the impugned order is that the appellant s case was not found to be a deserving case for grant of extension. Further the impugned order does not mention any specific reasons as to how the appellant is not found deserving for grant of permission under Rule 16C of the Rules. Revenue has also failed to prove that the appellant has committed any violation of the terms and conditions and procedure prescribed by the learned Commissioner while granting the permission. In view of these circumstances, we hold that denial of permission under Rule 16C is not legally sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of permission under Rule 16C of the Central Excise Rules for the financial year 2015-16 based on the appellant's case not being considered a "deserving case."
- Allegations of violation of prescribed procedures and conditions of Rule 16C and Rule 12AA of the Rules.

Analysis:

The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of self-adhesive paper, sought permission to remove goods for further processing under Rule 16C of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner rejected the application citing the appellant's case as not falling under the category of a "deserving case" as per Circular No.844/02/2007-CX. Additionally, the Commissioner found alleged violations of Rule 16C and Rule 12AA. The appellant contested these findings, emphasizing strict adherence to procedures and compliance with conditions. The appellant argued that no show-cause notice was issued for any violations. The appellant highlighted the beneficial nature of Rule 16C, emphasizing the discretion should benefit the assessee and trade. The appellant also pointed out that compliance with Rule 16C resulted in higher duty payments to the Pune Commissionerate.

The respondent, represented by the Additional Commissioner, defended the impugned order, stating that permission under Rule 16C is granted in deserving cases only. The respondent acknowledged no past violations or prejudice to revenue by granting the permission. The Commissioner allowed a grace period for the appellant to operate under Rule 16C post the denial. Subsequent checks during this grace period revealed no violations by the appellant.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant had been compliant with Rule 16C from 2011-12 to 2014-15. The Tribunal noted the lack of specific reasons in the impugned order for denying permission for 2015-16. No evidence of violations was presented by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the denial of permission as legally unsustainable. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Commissioner to grant permission for the financial year 2015-2016 under Rule 16C, considering the commercial necessity and benevolent nature of the rule.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of following due process and the discretionary nature of granting permissions under Rule 16C.