2018 (5) TMI 396 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002, 3/2004-CE dated 8.1.2004, 108/95-CE dated 28.8.1995 and 10/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 - denial of exemption on the ground that there are discrepancy in the documents - Held that - there is a minor discrepancy in the documents - Learned Counsel took us to all the relevant documents wherefrom we find that the description of the goods clearly tallied between the certificate issued by the Project Authority and the description appeared in the invoices issued by the appellant. Therefore, the correlation between the details appearing in the certificate and details appearing in the invoice is clearly established. As regards the address of the Chinchwad Unit, it is immaterial whether the address of their office or manufacturing unit is mentioned - so long the certificate bears the name of the appellant, a different address of the appellant mentioned in the certificate does not debar the appellant from availing the exemption notification. There are no serious discrepancy, which establishes that the goods have not been supplied for the intended purpose - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for exemption under various notifications - No. 6/2002-CE, No. 3/2004-CE, No. 108/95-CE, and No. 10/97-CE.

Analysis:

1. The department alleged that the appellant was not eligible for exemption under multiple notifications due to discrepancies in certificates and invoices. The adjudicating authority found issues with correlating invoice descriptions with certificates under Notification No. 3/2004-CE. Similarly, for Notification No. 108/95-CE and No. 10/97-CE, there were allegations of certificates not matching the appellant's unit address and lack of correlation with invoices. The demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeals.

2. Ms. Manasi Patil, representing the appellant, acknowledged the payment under Notification No. 6/2002-CE and focused on defending eligibility under the other notifications. She argued that the certificates were submitted with proper correlation to invoices, establishing eligibility under Notification No. 3/2004-CE, No. 108/95-CE, and No. 10/97-CE. She clarified discrepancies regarding the unit addresses mentioned in the certificates, emphasizing the goods' intended use and the established correlation between certificates and invoices.

3. On behalf of the Revenue, Shri D.S. Chavan reiterated the impugned order's findings, emphasizing strict compliance with notification conditions for granting exemptions. He cited various judgments to support the Revenue's stance on adherence to notification requirements.

4. The Tribunal carefully examined both parties' submissions and found minor discrepancies in the documents. It was noted that the goods' descriptions matched between certificates and invoices, establishing a clear correlation. The Tribunal deemed the address discrepancy immaterial as long as the appellant's name was consistent. Emphasizing the objective of the exemption notifications to ensure goods are used for specific projects, the Tribunal concluded that the substantial benefit of exemption should not be denied based on minor technicalities. After reviewing the records and finding no serious discrepancies, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, ruling in favor of the appellant's eligibility for exemption under the disputed notifications.

*(Pronounced in Court on 19/04/2018)*