9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. Therefore non-filing of declaration shall result in denial of exemption. As regards question of limitation, it is not disputed that the appellant before availing of the exemption had neither applied for registration nor intimated the department about nature of activity therefore extended period under proviso to Section 11A has been correctly invoked. Since Shri Shantanu Sangi, Director of the appellant-company was actively involved in the day to day activity of the appellant-company penalty on him under Rule 26 has been correctly imposed. This is not the case for total waiver from requirement of pre-deposit thus appellant-company directed to deposit entire amount of duty demand confirmed against them within eight weeks from the date of this order. Appellant Shri Shantanu Sangi, Director of the appellant-company is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 lakh within eight weeks from the date of this order. - E/451-452/2012 - Stay Order Nos. 1819-1820/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 17-10-2012 - Ajit Bharihoke and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Devender Singh, JCDR, for the Respondent. ORDER The facts leading to these app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to new industrial units which have commenced commercial production on or after 7-1-2003 but not later than 31st March, 2010 and also to industrial units existing before the 7-1-2003 but which have undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than 25% on or after 7-1-2003 have commenced commercial production from such expanded capacity, and not later than the 31st March, 2010. 1.3 In this case, though according to the appellant, they are a new unit and started their clearance of excisable goods from 1-9-2005 without payment of duty under this notification, they did not file the declaration to the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner as required in terms of the condition mentioned in para 1 of the notification. There was absolutely no intimation to the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers about their manufacturing activity. Even the application for central excise registration was also not made and no monthly returns were filed. The required declaration was filed only on 24-12-2008. At this stage, the department after conducting enquiry, issued a show cause notice for demand of duty amounting to Rs. 1,37,60,266/- from the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on under this notification filing of declaration is a purely procedural formality for which the substantive benefit of this notification cannot be denied, that Apex Court in the case of CCE (P), Mumbai v. M. Ambalal Co. - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 487 (S.C.) has held that the benefit of the notification would not be available to the appellant if any of the condition of the notification is not fulfilled and that exemption should generally be strictly interpreted, but beneficial exemptions having their purpose as encouragement or promotion of certain activities should be liberally interpreted; that the purpose of Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. was to promote industrial development in backward hilly areas, that in this background when the appellant being otherwise eligible for the benefit of exemption notification in the sense that the goods being manufactured are covered by this exemption notification and the area in which the unit located is also specified in the notification, the benefit of this exemption should not be denied just because the appellant did not file required declaration before starting the clearances, that non-filing of declaration was due to genuine reasons, that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led declaration nor did they intimate the department in any manner about their manufacturing activity, they would not be entitled for this exemption and therefore exemption during the period of dispute has, therefore, been correctly denied to them and the penalty has been correctly imposed on the appellant-company as well as on the director of the appellant-company. He, therefore, pleaded that in view of this, this is not a case for waiver of pre-deposit. 5. We have considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The duty exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. is subject to the condition prescribed in para 1 of the notification which is that a manufacturer who intends to avail of this exemption shall exercise option in writing before effecting first clearances and while exercising his option, he shall furnish certain details as prescribed in the notification, i.e. name, full address, location of factory, description of goods manufactured, description of inputs being used in the manufacture of specified goods and the date from which the option under this notification is being exercised. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that during the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ie, view the ratio of the Apex Court s judgment in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corporation (supra) would be applicable to the facts of the present case and non-filing of declaration shall result in denial of exemption. 6. The appellant cited judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Pearl Enterprises v. CCE, Chandigarh and M/s. Shivam Enterprises v. CCE, Chandigarh but in both cases, the appellant during the period of dispute had intimated the department about activity while in this case there was absolutely no intimation to the department about their activity. 7.. As regards question of limitation, it is not disputed that the appellant before availing of the exemption had neither applied for registration nor intimated the department about nature of activity we are, therefore, prima facie of the view that the Apex Court s judgment cited by the appellant are not applicable to the facts of this case and extended period under proviso to Section 11A has been correctly invoked. Since Shri Shantanu Sangi, Director of the appellant-company was actively involved in the day to day activity of the appellant-company, we are prima facie of the view that pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
