2015 (10) TMI 1225 - AT - Central Excise

Export of goods - Denial of the benefit of notification No. 42/2001 CE (NT) dated 26.6.2001 - Failure to comply with the supplementary instructions issued by CBEC in respect of availment of exemption under Notification No. 42/2001 - whether the supplementary instruction issued by CBEC are mandatory for the appellant to comply with to avail benefit of notification No. 42/01 - Held that - in the case of Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd.(2012 (2) TMI 289 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) also the Hon ble Apex Court held that departmental circular arc not binding on the assessee, quasi judicial authorities and courts and therefore, in that view of the matter, circular /instructions issued by Board would not assist them. Admittedly, in the case of supplementary instructions which have been issued by CBEC and the notification No. 42/01 ibid both have been issued by Central Government and in the said notification there is no such condition. Therefore, appellant is not required to fulfill the condition imposed on him by way of supplementary instructions. In that view of the matter, I hold that appellant has complied with the conditions of the Notification(ibid). Therefore, appellant is entitled to avail exemption under said notification. Consequently, impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of benefit of notification No. 42/2001 CE (NT) due to non-compliance with supplementary instructions issued by CBEC.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in the production and clearance of excisable goods, was exporting goods without duty payment under Notification No. 42/2001. The issue arose when the appellant failed to comply with the supplementary instructions issued by CBEC regarding the exemption. The appellant argued that the supplementary instructions were not mandatory as they were not a condition under the said notification. Citing relevant case law, the appellant contended that the circulars cannot restrict or impose new conditions contrary to the statutory notifications. The AR, however, supported the impugned order denying the benefit.

Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal deliberated on whether the supplementary instructions were mandatory for availing the benefit of the notification. Referring to the judgments in Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd. and Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that circulars issued by the department are not binding if they impose new conditions or restrict the scope of statutory notifications. Since the notification in question did not contain the condition mentioned in the supplementary instructions, the Tribunal held that the appellant had fulfilled the notification's conditions and was entitled to the exemption. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.