9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im. Revision application filed by commissioner of central excise rejected being devoid of any merit - - - 495/2011-CX - Dated:- 18-5-2011 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Rajiv Tuli and Tushar Jai, Advocates, for the Assessee. [Order]. This Revision Application has filed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I, against the order-in-appeal No. 66/CE/DLH/2009, dated 8-5-2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Delhi-I was decided vide GOI Order No. 215/10-CX., dated 16-2-10. Applicant filed W.P. No. 7033/10 in the Hon ble High Court of Delhi who vide order dated 14-2-11 set aside the said GOI Order and remanded the matter back to this authority for deciding case afresh taking into account the observations of Hon ble High Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Parshva Overseas filed the rebate claims of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of end products i.e. S.S. Utensils which were exported under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 after clearances from their factory premises under erstwhile Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 (Now Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Credit. In other words, the contention of the petitioner is that non-utilization of Cenvat Credit is entitled to rebate in Rule 18 read with Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. This aspect has not been dealt with and examined in the impugned order. 15. Learned Counsel for respondent in course of argument had relied upon Form ARE-2 to contented that a declaration has to be furnished by the applicant that they have not availed of Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Credit Rules. No doubt the Form and declaration have to be examined, but what is important and relevant is the interpretation of the words not availed of facility of Cenvat Credit, in the Form/declaration. It has to be examined whether these words mean and include even a part utilization of Cenvat Credit in respect of which no rebate is sought or refer to non-utilization of the Cenvat Credit in its entirety. In this connection, it may be relevant to refer to paragraph 4(c) of the Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. The said clause permits removal of waste on payment of duty if such waste is manufactured or processed outside the factory of the applicant seeking rebate. Therefore, removal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given strict meaning; whereon the notifications have to be interpreted in terms of their language. But once the applicant-assessee satisfies and meets the eligibility conditions, procedural provisions have be construed liberally. The doctrine of substantial compliance applies. The said doctrine is equitable in nature and designed to avoid hardship. Substantial compliance depends upon facts and circumstances of each case, the purpose and object to be achieved in the context of exemption and purpose of the Rule and the Regulations. However, such defence cannot be pleaded if there is a clear statutory prerequisite which effectuates the object and purpose of the statute which has not been met. Substantial compliance means actual compliance in respect of the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute . In Commissioner of Central Excise v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and Ors. (supra), it has been observed :- 34. The test for determining the applicability of the substantial compliance doctrine has been the subject of a myriad of cases and quite often, the critical question to be examined is whether the requirements relate to the substance or essence of the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requested for one more short adjournment. Accordingly, the next hearing was fixed on 24-3-2011, wherein, they stated that the respondents have reversed the cenvat credit of Rs. 841620 and therefore there is no violations of Central Excise Manual on supplementary instructions. 7. Government of India observes that facts of this case needed to be analysed in the light of Hon ble High Court s judgment in the case of M/s. Repro India Ltd., M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. and observation of Hon ble Delhi High Court in this case. 8. Government first analyses fact of this case in the light of Hon ble Bombay High Court s judgment in Repro India Ltd. v. Union of India - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 614 (Bom) :- The observation of High Court, relevant to this case is as regard to interpretations of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The relevant Portion of Rule 6(6)(v) reads as under : (6) The provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in case the excisable goods removed without payment of duty are either - (i) (ii) ... (iii) (iv) (v) Cleared for export under Bond in terms of provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n inputs. In the instant case, the subject matter of dispute is not simultaneous availment of input stage rebate and finished goods rebate. The crux of Hon ble Delhi Court s judgment is that such double benefit should not be extended. This subject case is not about double benefit of input stage and output stage rebate claim. Moresoever, the respondents have reversed the cenvat credit used for payment of duty on removal of scraps and as such there is no availment of double benefit of availing cenvat credit as well as input stage rebate claim. Regarding other procedural lapses, Government agrees with the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) who has already condoned said lapses. 10. Under such circumstances, the Government is of opinion that after reversal of the cenvat credit, the respondents have not availed the benefit of cenvat credit and hence, there is no violations of para 1.5(iii) of Part V of C.B.E.C. Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions. Accordingly, the respondents are eligible for rebate. 11. In light of above observations, Government do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and hence upholds the same. 12. Revision application rejected be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
