9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il and other oil subject to certain conditions specified therein. 3.1 Manufacturers intending to avail the benefit of exemption under this notification had, at the begining of every financial year, to give notice of such intention to the Assistant Collector that they would manufacture vegetable product in terms of condition (a) or condition (b) of the Notification and the method of manufacture so stated would not be varied during the financial year. The Notification also stipulated that those intending to avail this exemption during the financial year 1983-84 had to give notice of such intention to Assistant Collector within one month from the date of publication of the Notification in the Oficial Gazette or within such extended period as the Collector of Central Excise may allow as to whether they would manufacture V.P. in terms of condition (a) or condition (b) of the Notification and that method of manufacture would not be varied during that period. 3.2 The ld. Advocate submits that the appellants were not aware of the Notification but after they came to know of it they filed a revised classification lists dated 24-1-1984 in which they intimated their intention to avail this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e certifying that they worked in terms of condition (a) of the Notification No. 259/83-C.E. 5. He submits that the fact that V.P. was made from the particular oil is not denied. If at all certain conditions were not fulfilled they were merely procedural and they had substantially complied with the conditions in the Notification. Objective of the Notification was import substitution. In their case V.P. was admittedly made from rice bran oil and this fact is verifiable from their records. He submits in such cases the Tribunal had held that when there is substantial compliance with the condition of Notification procedural irregularities cannot be relied upon to denying the benefit to the appellants and cited the following cases in his support. 1988 (37) E.L.T. 243 (Tribunal) 1989 (39) E.L.T. 658 (Tribunal) 1988 (33) E.L.T. 670 (Tribunal) 6. Arguing for the Revenue the ld. D.R. submits that they ought to have obtained extension of time from the Collector since they claimed exemption. It was for them to prove that they are eligible to exemption and since they had not obtained necessary extension from the Collector conditions of Notifications were not satisfied. In case of exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be, in our view, placed at a disadvantage on this ground. It was observed by the Hon ble Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ajanta Electricals, Punjab reported in 1996 (62) E.C.R. 86 (S.C.): Even application could be made even after the time allowed had expired it became the duty of the Income Tax Officer to grant it or reject. Once the assessee called upon the Income Tax Officer to exercise his discretion it was not open to him to ignore that request and not to pass any order thereon. In this view of this matter since Assistant Collector in his order has taken cognisance of the application made to the Collector for extension of time we are of the view that non-receipt of permission cannot have the effect in these circumstances of denying the substantive benefit otherwise conferred on them by the Notification. In regard to claim made for classification list filed on 1-4-1984 we do not see any merit in the findings of the Assistant Collector that during the year 1984-85, the Assessee failed to give the required intimation at the begining of the financial year since the classification lists dated 1-4-1984 categorically claimed exemption. 8.1 The Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ows :- Provided further that a manufacturer intending to avail himself of exemption under this Notification during the financial year 1983-84, shall give notice of his intention to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise in writing within one month of publication or this notification in the Official Gazette or within such extended period as the Collector of Central Excise may allow, as to whether he would manufacture vegetable product in terms of condition (a) or condition (b) above, and the method of manufacture so stated shall not be varied during the said year. Whereas the proviso in Notification No. 99/84-C.E., dated 28-4-1984 reads as follows :- Provided that the manufacturer intending to avail himself of the benefit of exemption under this Notification shall furnish an undertaking to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, in writing, within one month of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, or within such extended period as the Collector of Central Excise may allow, that he would manufacture vegetable product either in terms of condition (a) or condition (b) above, and that the method of manufacture so stated shall not be varied during a fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise. It is on the record that the appellants sent their application to the Collector of Central Excise through the Superintendent and there is a certificate on the record from the Superintendent that the said letter dated 10-2-1984 addressed to the Collector was received in the Office of the Superintendent. It is nobody s guess that it reached to the Collector of Central Excise and if so what order he had passed. Since I have taken the view that the said declaration or claim regarding the exemption was made in the classification list I do not feel it is necessary that the matter should be investigated for this purpose. 14. In view of the above, I uphold the impugned order so far as it relates to the denial of benefit under Notification No. 99/84-C.E., dated 28-4-1984 with respect to the respective classifications. 15. Court time over dictation to continue. 16. Dictation in the Open Court on the next date could not be taken up as my Ld. Brother Shri Shiben K. Dhar, was on leave and the composition of the Bench was different. 17. As regards the issue as to whether the appellants switched over from condition No. (a) to (b), I find that, though, the Assistant Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
