9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 07.06.2024 [ 2024 (6) TMI 300 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that ' Once the genuineness of the invoices has been verified and found to be justify the quantum of claim of the appellant as verified by the Jurisdictional assistant Commissioner, the non-submission of undertaking by the appellant is merely procedural and the appellant should not be denied the substantial benefit merely for procedural lapse.' In view of the above decision in the appellant s own case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) order without considering the entitlement of exemption N/N. 12/2012-CE is not legal and proper. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed. Other appeal for personal penalty on Shri Tarun Santra which is consequential to the demand of duty on the company. Since the duty demand against company is not sustainable, consequential penalty will also not sustain. Both the appeals are allowed. - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. RAJU , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Sanjay Desai , General Manager of Company appeared for the Appellant Shri P. Ganesan , Superintendent ( Authorised Representative ) appeared for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.34/2006-CE dt. 14-06-2006 and not require following the procedure prescribed vide Board Circular. The Appellant submitted before Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods were cleared without payment of duty by availing the benefit of Sr.No.336 of Notification No.12/2012-CE dt.17-03-2012 as the goods are cleared against International Competitive Bidding. The clearance of goods under International Competitive Bidding is exempt from duty vide Sr.No.336 of Notification No.12/2012-CE The Appellant has submitted the copies of the PAC as well as copies of the Central Excise invoices before the Commissioner (Appeals) to substantiate that the goods were cleared by availing the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE. This fact has also been explained during the personal hearing held on 09-10.2017 by the Authorised signatory of the Appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not provided any finding or comment on the submissions made by the Appellant and confirmed the demand. 1.5 The commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand on the ground that the Appellant has not followed the conditions provided in the Notification No.34/2006-CE dt. 14-06-2006 for goods cleared without payment of duty and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also but the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding or comment on the submission made by the appellant in this regard. This issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the appellant s own case vide Final Order No. 11181-11183/2024 dated 07.06.2024 which is reproduced below:- para 4 onwards 4. We have carefully gone through the rival submissions of the Counsel of the appellant and the AR of the revenue. We are of the considered opinion that invoking of the provisions of the Customs notification No. 21/2002 at the adjudication stage which were not cited in the show cause notice was clearly beyond the scope of SCN as rightly contended by the Ld. Counsel of the appellant and further we agree with the argument of the Ld. Counsel that the provisions of the Custom notification no. 21/2002 cannot be applied to the appellant who is not the importer of the goods. Therefore, the benefit of Sr. No. 91 of Notification No. 6/2006-CE and Sr. No. 336 of notification no. 12/2012-CE could not be denied to them as the goods were duly Certified by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to the effect that all the invoices were for the goods supplied against International Competi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court judgment in the case of Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.). Per Contra the Ld. AR has argued that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and Ors.-2010 (260) ELT 0003 (S.C.) has held that the law is well settled that a person who claims exemption or concession has to establish that he is entitled to that exemption or concession. A provision providing for an exemption, concession or exception, as the case may be, has to be construed strictly with certain exceptions depending upon the settings on which the provision has been placed in the Statute and the object and purpose to be achieved. If exemption is available on complying with certain conditions, the conditions have to be complied with. The mandatory requirements of those conditions must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, though at times, some latitude can be shown, if there is a failure to comply with some requirements which are directory in nature, the non-compliance of which would not affect the essence or substance of the notification granting exemption. In Novopan Indian Ltd. (supra), this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
