9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of Zinc Oxide falling under Item 14 CET amounting to Rs. 8,681.31. The brief facts are as follows :- The appellants are the manufacturers of Zinc Oxide falling under Tariff Item 14. Till September, 1979, they availed exemption from licencing control in terms of Notification No. 111/78 dated 9-5-1978 and also exemption from payment of duty, under Notification No. 71/78, dated 1-3-1978. In October, 1979, they took out Central Excise Licence. During April, 1979 to September, 1979, the clearances of Zinc Oxide were to the tune of Rs. 6,73/626.25, i.e. exceeding exemption limit of Rs. 5 lakhs and hence appellants were asked to pay duty amounting to Rs. 8,681.31 on the excess clearances of Rs. 1,73,626.25, which they paid on 27-3-1980 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the Assistant Collector to treat this clearance of Zinc Oxide also as made under Notification No. 21/55. Assistant Collector vide the impugned orders rejected both the requests of the appellants on the ground that they have not followed the proper procedure and have not satisfied the conditions of Notification No. 21/55. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed two appeals, which we are deciding under a common order, the issues involved in the appeals being identical. 2. Shri B.B. Gujral, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that although the Department holds that the appellants had not followed Chapter X Procedure of Central Excise Rules for their supplies of Zinc Oxide to M/s. Premier Tyres Ltd., the appellants had substanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of the Tribunal to say that in the case of such exemption notification prescribing the following of Chapter X procedure, the exemption may be extended if substantial compliance is shown regarding the receipt and utilisation of the exempted material by the user manufacturer. See in this context the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore, reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 22 wherein the Tribunal had referred to and followed another decision in the case reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 658 to say that unless it is deliberate and mala fide, failure on the part of the assessee to follow certain procedures cannot come in the way of his availing the substantive benefit under statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise licensing requirement, they need not observe Central Excise formalities. Fourthly, the appellants have produced in their present appeal confirmation No. PTF : 3809 dated 4/1984 from Premier Tyres giving particulars of receipt and utilisation of Zinc Oxide from the appellants which the lower authorities had no occasion to go into. In the result, following the ratio of the precedent decisions cited supra, it is held that the exemption under Notification No. 21/55 cannot be denied to the appellants merely for not following the details of Chapter X procedure so long as they are able to establish by evidence substantial compliance therewith and in this light the jurisdictional Assistant Collector may consider the refund claim subject to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
