9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nagar, Uttarakhand. The period of dispute in this case is from November, 2009 to October, 2010. At the relevant time, benefit of exemption was extended to the unit located in Uttarakhand under two notifications being Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. and Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. was goods specific and Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. was for location specific. As per Notification No. 50/2003-C.E., the assessee desirous of availing benefit under that notification was required to furnish requisite infornnation on prescribed declaration form. The appellant with a view to avail the benefit of exemption from excise duty submitted requisite declaration. The appellant, however, instead of mentioning that declaration wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the same issue between the parties. Thus, in our view, there being no factual dispute in this case, the appeal can be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand and interest is waived and the matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both sides. 4. Shri R.K. Hasija, Advocate, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant pleaded that the appellant's unit is located at C-60B, Khasra No. 169, 170, 171, Eledeco Industrial Park, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, which area for the purpose of exemption from excise duty falls within the ambit of Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the requisite declaration Notification No. 49/2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... msp;Shri Nagesh Pathak, learned AR for the Revenue has pleaded that in order to avail the benefit of exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E., the appellant was required to file requisite declaration. The appellant, however, instead of filing declaration under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E., filed declaration under Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. which declaration cannot be treated as declaration under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. to extend the benefit of exemption from payment of excise duty to the appellant. Learned AR further submits that perusal of the declaration filed by the appellant under Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. would show that it does not supply the complete information in as much as that the declaration d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied in the Form annexed while claiming exemption for the first time under this Notification and thereafter before the 15th day of April of each financial year. As found by the forums below, including CEGAT, factually, the declaration and the undertaking were not submitted by the appellants. This is not an empty formality. It is the foundation for availing the benefits 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 benefits under the Notification. For availing benefits under an exemption Notification, the conditions have to be strictly complied with. Therefore, CEGAT endorsed the view that the exemption from operation of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perusal of the records, we find that pursuant to the declaration submitted by the appellant, the jurisdictional Superintendent of Excise Department had visited the appellant's unit for field verification and as per his verification report addressed to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, the appellant was found qualified for availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. From this it is evident that the appellant was entitled to area based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. Even the department was treating the declaration filed by the appellant claiming exemption as submitted under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. irrespective of clerical mistake regarding Notification No. 7. The judgement of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003-C.E. However, on reading of the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Adjudication) instead of addressing to the real issue has gone into technical details regarding the Notification No. mentioned in the declaration filed for claiming exemption. From the report of the jurisdictional superintendent of central excise, it is obvious that after field survey, the appellant was found eligible for exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. It is not the case of the department that at any stage the appellant became ineligible for exemption. Therefore, in our view, merely because of inadvertent clerical error regarding Notification No. in the declaration filed for the purpose of exemption, the appellant cannot be denied the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
