2016 (9) TMI 283 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of exemption Notification No. 108/1995-CE dated 28.08.1995 - clearance of 85.755 MT of M.S. CTD Bars during the month of July 2004 and March 2005 - no certificate produced before removal of goods - certificate produced subsequently was in the name of ANS Construction (P) Ltd. New Delhi and not in the name of the appellant - Held that - the appellant has not explained as to how the certificate issued in the name of ANS Construction Ltd. should be considered as proper and valid for the purpose of claiming duty exemption contained in the notification dated 28.08.1995. It is an admitted fact on record that the requirement of Notification No. 108/1995-CE dated 28.08.1995 have not been complied with by the appellant, thus the benefit contained therein is not available. In this context, the law is well settled that while interpreting an exemption notification, there is no room of any intendment and regard must be had to the language used therein. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
Claim of duty exemption under Notification No. 108/1995-CE dated 28.08.1995 for excisable goods cleared by the appellant between July 2004 and March 2005.

Analysis:

1. Claim of Duty Exemption:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, claimed duty exemption under Notification No. 108/1995-CE dated 28.08.1995 for the clearance of M.S. CTD Bars between July 2004 and March 2005. The authorities denied the exemption citing the absence of a certificate before goods removal and the subsequent submission of a certificate not in the appellant's name.

2. Appellant's Argument:
The appellant's advocate argued that goods were supplied to M/s ANS Construction Ltd. in line with the notification, hence, the duty exemption should apply. He contended that the delayed certificate submission should be seen as a procedural error, not negating the substantive right to exemption. The advocate referenced tribunal decisions supporting the appellant's position.

3. Respondent's Argument:
The respondent's representative contended that non-compliance with the notification's requirements disqualifies the appellant from the duty exemption. Relying on precedent, it was argued that strict adherence to notification language is necessary, as established by the Supreme Court.

4. Tribunal's Finding:
The Tribunal noted that no certificates were produced for the goods supplied during the relevant period, and the available certificates were not in the appellant's name but in M/s ANS Construction Ltd.'s name. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of nexus between the parties in the cited cases and emphasized the importance of complying with notification requirements.

5. Legal Precedent:
The Tribunal emphasized that strict adherence to exemption notification language is crucial, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Parle Biscuits case. It was concluded that since the appellant failed to comply with the notification requirements, the duty exemption was not applicable.

6. Decision:
The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision, dismissing the appeal due to the appellant's non-compliance with Notification No. 108/1995-CE dated 28.08.1995. The judgment reiterated the necessity of following exemption notification language without room for interpretation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case underscores the importance of strict compliance with exemption notification requirements for claiming duty exemptions, emphasizing the need to adhere to the language and provisions of such notifications without deviation.