2005 (2) TMI 321 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of exemption notification requirement for filing undertaking annually at the commencement of each financial year.

Analysis:
The case involves the appellants engaged in tea manufacturing who were availing exemption under Notification 41/99-C.E. during the financial years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The dispute arose when the department proposed to deny the exemption benefit for the period from 1-4-2001 to 28-5-2001 due to the late filing of the undertaking for the year 2001-2002. The appellants challenged the denial before the Tribunal after the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner.

The key issue to be determined was whether an undertaking needed to be filed annually at the commencement of each financial year as per the requirements of the notification. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the notification, specifically Sr. No. II, which mandated the filing of an undertaking regarding the green leaf used by the factory. The Tribunal noted that the undertaking period extended from the date of filing until the end of the financial year, implying the need for a new undertaking at the start of each financial year. As the benefit of exemption commenced from the date of the undertaking, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not eligible for the exemption during the period when the old undertaking had expired, and the new one had not been filed.

In light of the interpretation of the notification's requirement for filing an undertaking annually at the commencement of each financial year, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals), thereby rejecting the appeal of the appellants. The judgment emphasizes the strict adherence to the conditions specified in the exemption notification, highlighting the significance of timely compliance with the filing of undertakings to avail of exemption benefits in the given financial year.