2015 (9) TMI 349 - HC - Central Excise

Benefit of exemption under Notification No.8 of 1997 - Held that - Notification No.8 of 1997 is not amended by Notification No.13 of 1998. It may have been amended by Notification No.7 of 1998 dated 2nd June, 1998, but that is not what has been pressed into service before us. What has been pressed into service is the allegation and in the show cause notice pertaining to the amendment to Notification No.8 of 1997 by a Notification No.13 of 1998. A perusal of the copy of the 1998 Notification does not reveal that it purports to or rather amends the earlier Notification No.8 of 1997. In the circumstances, the Tribunal s view is that if there are Notifications and granting benefits to an assessee in force, availment under one which was more beneficial could not be said to be an illegal or erroneous act. This finding of the Tribunal is imminently possible and given the fact situation. We do not find that the Notification either is superseded or amended as claimed by the Revenue. In the circumstances, the finding of fact does not raise any substantial question of law - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
Appeal challenging Customs Tribunal order; Interpretation of Notifications; Allegation of non-payment of appropriate duty; Admissibility of exemption under Notifications; Amendments to Notifications; Concurrent findings of fact; Review of Notifications by Adjudicating Authority; Benefit availment under Notifications; Examination of Notification No.8 of 1997 and Notification No.13 of 1998.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay heard an appeal by the Revenue challenging a Customs Tribunal order primarily related to Appeal No. E/2809/2004. The main issue was the interpretation of Notifications determining the admissibility of benefits for the respondent-assessee. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal failed to consider specific allegations regarding non-payment of appropriate duty under Notification No.8 of 1997, as amended by Notification No.13 of 1998. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's failure to note the alleged amendment required scrutiny by the Court to determine if the Notification was amended or superseded. The Court examined the Notifications and found that Notification No.8 of 1997 was not amended by Notification No.13 of 1998, leading to the conclusion that the benefit claimed by the assessee was not illegal or erroneous.

The respondent, represented by senior counsel, argued that there were concurrent findings of fact supporting their position. They emphasized that Notification No.8 of 1997 had not been amended by Notification No.13 of 1998, as alleged by the Revenue. The respondent highlighted the conditions under the Notifications and the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) supporting their compliance with the relevant Notifications. The Court agreed with the respondent that the findings were not perverse or vitiated by any error of law, thus not raising substantial questions of law.

The Court reviewed the show cause notice, the Adjudicating Authority's findings, and the appellate orders to determine the applicability of Notifications. It was established that Notification No.8 of 1997, as amended by Notification No.7 of 1998, was still in force and had not been superseded by Notification No.13 of 1998. The Court concurred with the lower authorities' interpretation that the assessee was compliant with the relevant Notifications and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Court clarified that its decision was limited to the specific appeal and would not impact pending proceedings based on remand orders in other appeals.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal, finding no substantial question of law in the concurrent findings of fact and the interpretation of the Notifications. The Court's analysis focused on the specific allegations, the applicability of Notifications, and the compliance of the assessee with the relevant legal provisions.

← Previous Next →