9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and K.K. Agarwal, Member (T) Shri Saket Patwari, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.M. Vaidya, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)]. - The appellants in this case are engaged in the manufacture of kraft paperboards and was availing quantity based exemption under Notification No- 6/2000 dated 1-3-2000. During the course of manufacture of paperboards, some cuttings and trimmings were arising, which were consumed captively for further manufacture of paper and paper boards. The appellants claimed exemption in respect of such cuttings and trimmings under Notification No. 67/95 which granted exemption in respect of goods captively used in the manufacture of final product, subject to the condition that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty on crossing the exemption limit and is not fully exempted. However, in alternative exemption under Notification No. 10/96 is available to them as has been clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 61/5/2001-CX4, dated 1-3-2001. He referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Venus Tyres Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1999 (31) RLT 21 (CEGAT), Cipla Ltd. - 2007 (218) E.L.T. 547 (Tri.-Chennai) and CC, Chennai v. Kankai Imports - -2008 (223) E.L.T 62 (Tri.-Chennai) = 2007 (7) S.T.R. 190 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein it has been held that benefit of notification, not claimed at the initial stage, cannot be denied as it can be claimed at appellate stage also. Reference was invited to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Share Med ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the notification. Once the goods are removed it would be impossible for the department to verify as to whether the product in respect of which refund claim is made satisfies the conditions laid down in the notification. Similarly, in the case of Venus Industries, 2002 (149) E.L.T. 921, the Tribunal held that benefit of exemption notification is a conditional one as on fulfillment of conditions specified in the notification. It is not disputed that appellants have not claimed the benefit of Notification No. 77/85 at the relevant time by filing a classification list and as such the department never had an opportunity to verify as to whether the appellants did satisfy the conditions specify in the notification. It has also not been di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contested that the benefit of notification No. 10/96 is not available on merits and the simple objection is that it should have been claimed at the time of filing declaration and cannot be claimed at a later stage. In this regard we find that the Supreme Court, in its recent decision in the case of Share Medical Care (cited supra), has very categorically held that even if an applicant does not claim benefit under a particular notification at initial stage, he is not debarred or prohibited or estopped from claiming such benefit at later stage. In such a situation, benefit cannot be denied merely because it has been claimed at a later stage. However, we do agree that the benefit can be extended only after the conditions specified in the noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
