2023 (12) TMI 1002 - HC - Central Excise

Recovery of Central Excise Duty alongwith interest and penalty - Onus to prove - conditions imposed in N/Ns. 4/97-CE, 5/98-CE, 5/99-CE, 6/00-CE were satisfied or not - failure to discharge the onus of proving that the two conditions mentioned in the said Notifications, namely, that the goods in question had to be sold to the apex bodies by the respondent and that a certificate should be issued from the said apex bodies to the respondent at the time of the clearance of goods that the said goods were going to be used only on handloom had been satisfied - whether or not the role of the apex bodies was in the nature of selling or commission agents and not that of direct purchasers of the said goods from the Respondent. HELD THAT - It is undisputed that the respondent/assessee is a co-operative spinning mill which manufactured the yarn in question. The two co-noticees namely Tantuja and Tantusree are also apex handloom co-operative societies of the State Government who purchased yarn and also gave certificate that the yarn is going to be used only on handlooms. The respondent/assessee received payments from the aforesaid two purchasers namely Tantuja and Tantusree, by account payee cheques. The inference drawn by the adjudicating authority to deny exemption under the relevant exemption notification, that delivery of yarn was given by the respondent/assessee to persons other than Tantuja and Tantusree, is neither based on any material or evidence nor the inference so drawn can be said to be a valid exercise of power by the adjudicating authority - on admitted facts of the case, it is found that the respondent/assessee has fully complied with the conditions of the relevant exemption notification. Therefore, the Tribunal has correctly and lawfully set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal of the respondent/assessee. Undisputedly, the yarn in question has been purchased by the co-noticees namely Tantuja and Tantusree, which both are registered apex handloom co-operative societies, who made payment to the respondent/assessee (yarn manufacturing co-operative society) through cheque drawn by them on their own bank accounts. They have also issued a certificate to the effect that the yarn is going to be used only on handlooms. Thus, all the conditions of the exemption notification in question were satisfied by the respondent/assessee. Therefore, the respondent/assessee was entitled for exemption and the Tribunal has lawfully and correctly allowed the appeal of the respondent/assessee holding the transactions in question to be exempt from Central Excise Duty. The adjudicating authority had proceeded to deny exemption to the respondent/assessee merely on the basis of surmises and presumptions and alleged intendment. In our view and as per well-settled principles in a taxation statute, there is no room for any intendment and that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification - Nothing is required to be read into nor should anything be implied other than essential inference while considering a taxation statute or exemption notification. What the adjudicating authority attempted to do is that it attempted to read something which was either factually not existing or which was not provided by the exemption notification. It attempted to add words by drawing its own inference on the basis of presumption that the yarn in question could have been sold by the respondent/assessee not to the aforesaid apex handloom co-operative societies but to some other persons - Since the respondent/assessee has fulfilled all the conditions, therefore, it became entitled for exemption and the exemption could not have been denied. There are no manifest error of law in the impugned order of the tribunal. The appellant has completely failed to make out any case for interference with the impugned order - substantial questions of law framed are answered in favour of the assessee and against the respondent. There are no merit in this appeal - appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Onus of Proof for Exemption Notification Conditions
2. Compliance with Exemption Notification Conditions
3. Nature of Role of Apex Bodies (Direct Purchasers or Commission Agents)

Summary:

Issue 1: Onus of Proof for Exemption Notification Conditions

The primary issue was whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the onus lay on the respondent to prove that the conditions imposed in Notification Nos. 4/97-CE, 5/98-CE, 5/99-CE, 6/00-CE were satisfied. The Tribunal found that the respondent/assessee had complied with the conditions of the relevant exemption notifications, which required the production of certificates from authorized officers stating that the yarn was going to be used only on handlooms and that payments were made by cheques drawn by the Apex bodies on their own bank accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent had sufficiently discharged its onus by providing the necessary certificates and evidence of payment.

Issue 2: Compliance with Exemption Notification Conditions

The second issue was whether the Tribunal should have held that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the goods were sold to the apex bodies and that the certificates issued at the time of clearance were valid. The Tribunal found that the yarn was sold to Tantuja and Tantusree, which are apex bodies established by the State Government, and that payments were made by cheques drawn on their own bank accounts. The Tribunal noted that the respondent provided the required certificates and there was no evidence to suggest that the yarn was used elsewhere. The Tribunal held that the respondent had fully complied with the conditions of the exemption notifications.

Issue 3: Nature of Role of Apex Bodies (Direct Purchasers or Commission Agents)

The third issue was whether the Tribunal should have inferred from the facts on record that the apex bodies acted as commission agents rather than direct purchasers. The Tribunal found that the apex bodies purchased the yarn for further distribution to traders, who then sold it to handloom weavers. The Tribunal concluded that the presence of traders in the meetings for price fixation and their payments to the apex bodies did not establish that the goods were sold directly to the traders. The Tribunal held that the role of the apex bodies was in accordance with the conditions of the exemption notifications and that the goods were purchased by the apex bodies for distribution to the handloom sector.

Conclusion:

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, stating that the respondent/assessee had fully complied with the conditions of the relevant exemption notifications. The Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming that the exemption from Central Excise Duty was lawfully extended to the respondent/assessee. The Court emphasized that the exemption notification must be interpreted based on its clear wording, without adding any presumptions or intendments.

← Previous Next →