9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e mandatory or regulatory in nature? 2. Is it necessary pre-requisite to adhere to the procedure prescribed under Rule 56A in order to avail the benefit under the said Rule even though the applicant was undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of the substantive rights under the said Rules? 3. Whether the substantive benefit under the Proforma credit/deemed credit scheme can be denied on the mere ground that procedure laid down was not complied with although the applicant had maintained other statutory records to establish the quantity of the duty paid raw material purchased and consumed in the manufacture of final products and has also maintained statutory records for the quantity of the final goods manufactured and cleared on payment of Du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduced before the lower authorities and no records prescribed under rule 56-A were maintained by the appellants. Tribunal held that maintenance of the records were not merely procedural requirements or technicalities or small lapses but substantial provisions of rule were not complied with. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that in law the applicants were eligible to the benefit and this benefit cannot be denied even if mere procedural requirements were not followed. He submitted that the procedural requirements can be condoned if substantive requirements of law are complied with. 4. Learned DR submitted that no question of law arises out of Tribunal Order and Tribunal after appreciating evidence placed before it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we have observed, there had been admittedly delay and the remains unexplained. What, in effect, the appellants want us to do is to ignore the provisions of Rule 56A(3) read with Rule 173K regarding submissions of D.3 forms within 24 hours. We would be slow to construe a statutory provisions in such a way as to render it redundant or meaningless. The Rule does not contain a provision for condonation of delays. This is quite apart from the fact that no explanation is forthcoming in justification of the delay. 6. In case of CCE v. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 475 (Tri.), Tribunal held that The question whether procedural breach committed by the respondent - non-applicant is technical or substantive is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
