2004 (10) TMI 456

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. at the contractual price of Rs. 535/- and paid duty at the tariff rate of 16%; that they were required to pay concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 9/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002; that the Assistant Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 11/2003 dated 21-10-2003 denied the refund of duty on the ground that benefit of Notification No. 9/2002 was not available to the respondents as they had not exercised the option in writing for availing the benefit of Notification; that, however, on Appeal filed by the respondents, Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has allowed the refund claim to the respondents holding that substantial benefit cannot be disallowed for non-filing of option, Relying upon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Cadila Laboratories (P) Ltd. [2002 (142) E.L.T. 279 (S.C.)]. 3. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, on the other hand, contended that as per the value of clearance effected by the respondents, they were eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 9/2002; that mere non-filing of option should not de-bar them from availing the benefit of Notification; that substantial benefit cannot be disallowed for mere procedural lacuna. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Notification No. 9/2002-C.E. provides concessional rate of duty subject to the conditions specified in Para 2 of the said Notification. The benefit of Notification is available o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In that matter, the declaration and the undertaking were not submitted by the assessee. The Supreme Court has held that the declaration undertaken was not an empty formulation. It is the foundation for availing the benefit under the Notification, it cannot be said that they are mere procedural requirements with no consequences attached for non-observance. The consequences are denial of benefit under Notifications for availing benefit under exemption notification, the conditions have to be strictly complied with. The Supreme Court, therefore, did not find merit in the Appeal and dismissed the same. In view of these judgments of the highest Court of Land, the decision in the case of Keshari Wire Products (P) Ltd. is not applicable. We, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X