2018 (2) TMI 907 - AT - Central Excise

Area Based Exemption - dispute in the present case mainly relates to the fact relating to the date of change of ownership of the unit and the date of filing intimation by the appellant to avail the area based exemption - Held that - It is clear that the statutory mandate is that the manufacturer should opt in writing before affecting the first clearance. Such option shall be effective from the date of exercise and shall not be withdrawn during the remaining part of the financial year. Except for this stipulation, we could not get any other provision with reference to opt in or opt out of the scheme during the operation of the said notification. The fact with reference to the date of filing intimation by the appellant is in dispute. Different dates are claimed by both the parties. This requires verification with supporting evidence available with the jurisdictional officer - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding availing area-based exemption under Notification 50/2003-CE.
2. Date of change of ownership of the manufacturing unit and the date of filing intimation by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturing unit, initially opted out of the area-based exemption scheme but later sought to avail it. The Revenue denied the exemption, citing the takeover of the unit by the appellant as the reason for ineligibility. The appellant argued that ownership is irrelevant, and they duly intimated their choice to avail the exemption, continuing to file returns accordingly. The appellant contended that the Revenue's denial was based on incorrect facts regarding the date of intimation.

2. The Revenue argued that the appellant should have filed the intimation immediately upon taking over the unit, emphasizing that the exemption scheme must be operated for the entire financial year without provisions for mid-year opting in or out. The lower authorities confirmed that the appellant's intimation was filed later than claimed, precluding any retrospective applicability of the exemption. The Revenue asserted that filing the intimation is a statutory requirement, not a procedural formality.

3. The Tribunal noted the statutory requirement for manufacturers to opt in writing before the first clearance, with the option remaining effective for the entire financial year. The dispute centered on conflicting dates of intimation, necessitating verification by the jurisdictional officer. The Tribunal directed the Original Authority to reexamine the case considering evidence supporting the appellant's intimation claim and the reliability of a letter from the previous owner.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous order, remanding the matter for a fresh decision by the Original Authority. The appeal was allowed for reconsideration based on the provisions of Notification 50/2003-CE and relevant clarifications issued by the Board.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, statutory provisions, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for further examination and a fresh decision.