9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical Co. [2002 (11) TMI 214 - CEGAT, MUMBAI], the CESTAT holds that the Assessee has no choice but to follow the condition(s) given in the rules and the notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. - E/397/2008 - A/10188/2017 - Dated:- 30-1-2017 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) For Appellant: Shri N. Satwani, A.R. For Respondent: Shri Anand Nainawati, Advocate ORDER Revenue (Commissioner of C. Ex. S. Tax, Vapi) is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) No. KRS/10/VAPI/2008, dt.17.01.2008, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), C.Ex. S. Tax, Vapi, whereunder the Order-in-Original (OIO) dt.10.01.2007 passed by Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Vapi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvalidation letter, The Assessee, however, had not mentioned relevant Central Excise Notification in their E.R.-1s as well as in ARE-3s for availing exemption from Central Excise duty. The Range Superintendent vide Letter No.SLV-IV/R-III/KLJ-ARO/05-06, dt.03.01.2006 requested the Assessee to inform the relevant Notification under which clearance was made without payment of duty. The Assessee replied that the clearance was made under Notification No.44/2001-CE(N.T.), dt.26.06.2001. The condition No.(i) (ii) of Notification No.44/2001-CE(N.T.), dt. 26.06.2001 stipulates that:- (i) The manufacturer of the intermediate goods holds an Advance Intermediate Licence or has applied for such licence to the Lice sing Authority and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wers conferred by of sub-rule (3) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 19 of the Central Excise (NO, , 2) Rules, 2001, the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby notifies the conditions, safeguards and procedures for removal of excisable goods (hereinafter referred to as the intermediate goods ) from the place of manufacture without payment of duty for the purpose of use in the manufacture or processing of all articles (hereinafter referred to as the resultant articles ) by a manufacturer who is an holder of a Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate and an Advance Licence under the Duty Exemption Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the ultimate exporter ) and their exportation out of India, to any country except Nepal and Bhutan, namely :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 Rule 1. .. Rule 2. . Rule 3. Application by the manufacturer to obtain the benefit. (1) A manufacturer who intends to receive subject goods for specified use at concessional rate of duty, shall make an application in quadruplicate in the Form at Annexure I to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be (hereinafter referred to as the said Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner). (2) The. manufacturer shall make separate application in respect of each supplier of subject goods. (3) The manufacturer shall execute a general bond with surety or security. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this case, the Respondent failed to fullfilled the condition No.(ii) of the Notification No.44/2001-CE (NT) (supra), when they had not complied with the provisions of Rule 3(7)and Rule 4(1) of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. 4.3 The Respondent pleads that it was not their responsibility to comply with the provisions of Rule 3(7) and Rule 4(1) of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 and it was receivers/buyers of their goods, who were to comply with those conditions of the Notification No.44/2001-CE(NT) (supra). This plea of shifting the responsibility of fulfillment of the conditions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions, in which case he must pay the full levy as authorised under the law without claiming the exemption. He may even challenge the vires of the conditions before an appropriate court, but so long as the conditions remain unchallenged, those must be necessarily satisfied before the tax officials can allow such conditional exemption. 4.5 Thus, in the case of Indofil Chemical Co., the CESTAT holds that the Assessee has no choice but to follow the condition(s) given in the rules and the notification. In the present case, when the conditions have not been fullfilled, necessary consequences are to be faced by the Respondent-Assessee. 4.6 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Allahabad Vs Ginni Filaments Ltd - 2005 (18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
