2019 (1) TMI 969 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance of goods to a specified project authority approved by the Government of India - Refund claim - exemption in terms of Notification No. 108/95-Ex dated 13.10.1995 - Held that - The exemption certificate as furnished by the appellant was providing and was fulfilling all the conditions as are required to be fulfilled for seeking the benefit. The certificate has been signed by Executive Chief Project Implementing Authority/ Chief Project Manager. It has been clarified in the certificate itself that his post is equivalent to Joint Secretary in Government of India in Ministry of Railways. Commissioner(Appeals) has miserably been silent about acknowledging all the details furnished to him vide the exemption certificate rather has opted to be silent for the same. The mere emphasis upon the Notification without acknowledging the complete compliance thereof on the part of the appellant is opined unappreciable on the part of the adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim based on failure to furnish required documents for exemption from Central Excise duty.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing, filed a refund claim for exemption from duty paid on goods cleared to a specific project authority funded by Asian Development Bank. The original Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the refund, but the Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the claim due to missing documents. The appellant argued that the required documents, including an exemption certificate, were duly submitted. The Department justified the rejection citing strict construction of the exemption Notification. The Tribunal observed that the exemption certificate fulfilled all conditions required for the exemption. The certificate was signed by the Chief Project Manager, equivalent to a Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Railways. The Commissioner(Appeals) failed to acknowledge the compliance evidenced by the certificate. The Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal.

This judgment primarily deals with the issue of whether the appellant fulfilled the necessary conditions for seeking exemption from Central Excise duty. The Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the refund claim citing missing documents, specifically a certificate signed by an officer equivalent to a Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Railways. The Tribunal found that the exemption certificate submitted by the appellant met all the required conditions as per the Notification. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner(Appeals) for not acknowledging the compliance shown by the appellant and emphasized the importance of considering complete compliance rather than merely focusing on the Notification.

The Tribunal's analysis focused on the details provided in the exemption certificate submitted by the appellant. The certificate included information such as the approval of the project by the Government of India, certification by the Executive Chief Project Implementing Authority, and confirmation that the goods supplied were required for the approved project. The Tribunal noted that the certificate signed by the Chief Project Manager, equivalent to a Joint Secretary, fulfilled the requirement of being countersigned by an officer of the specified rank. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of considering the actual compliance demonstrated by the appellant rather than a strict textual interpretation of the Notification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment revolved around the appellant's compliance with the conditions for exemption from Central Excise duty. The Tribunal found that the exemption certificate submitted by the appellant contained all the necessary details and fulfilled the requirements specified in the Notification. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner(Appeals) for not acknowledging the compliance shown by the appellant and set aside the order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.