9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 1252 - AT - Central ExciseExemption N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - procedure for goods cleared under Served from India Scheme not followed - whether Appellant wrongly availed exemption from duty for goods cleared under a specific notification? - HELD THAT - It is found that the appellant has claimed the exemption notification no. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 which does not contain any condition except the submission of PAC which is not in dispute, therefore, the appellant is clearly entitled for the Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 (Sr. no. 336). This was clearly presented before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also but the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding or comment on the submission made by the appellant in this regard. This issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the appellant s own case vide Final Order No. 11181-11183/2024 dated 07.06.2024 2024 (6) TMI 300 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that ' Once the genuineness of the invoices has been verified and found to be justify the quantum of claim of the appellant as verified by the Jurisdictional assistant Commissioner, the non-submission of undertaking by the appellant is merely procedural and the appellant should not be denied the substantial benefit merely for procedural lapse.' In view of the above decision in the appellant s own case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) order without considering the entitlement of exemption N/N. 12/2012-CE is not legal and proper. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed. Other appeal for personal penalty on Shri Tarun Santra which is consequential to the demand of duty on the company. Since the duty demand against company is not sustainable, consequential penalty will also not sustain. Both the appeals are allowed.
Issues:
1. Whether the Appellant wrongly availed exemption from duty for goods cleared under a specific notification. 2. Whether the demand raised against the Appellant is time-barred. 3. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the demand and imposing personal penalty. 4. Whether the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of a specific exemption notification. 5. Whether the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) is legal and proper. Analysis: Issue 1: The Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of electric wire and cable XLPE, cleared goods without duty payment under Notification No.12/2012-CE. The Assistant Commissioner alleged non-compliance with conditions under Notification No.34/2006-CE and failure to follow prescribed procedures. The Appellant contended that goods were cleared under Sr.No.336 of Notification No.12/2012-CE for International Competitive Bidding, supported by PAC and invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand citing non-compliance with conditions, which the Tribunal found incorrect based on the Appellant's submissions and previous judgments in the Appellant's favor. Issue 2: The Appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as there was no intention to evade duty payment. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the demand was hit by time bar, supported by the Appellant's compliance with the exemption notification and lack of suppression of facts. Issue 3: The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand and imposed a personal penalty, which the Tribunal found erroneous. The Tribunal held that the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE, and the demand and penalty were not sustainable. Issue 4: The Appellant claimed the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE, which does not contain additional conditions beyond submission of PAC. The Tribunal upheld the Appellant's entitlement to the exemption based on the notification's clear provisions and previous judgments in the Appellant's favor. Issue 5: The Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals) order improper as it did not consider the Appellant's entitlement to the exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals and consequentially nullifying the penalty on the Appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, holding that they were entitled to the exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE and that the demand and penalty were not sustainable. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
|
