2012 (10) TMI 343 - AT - Central Excise

Technical lapse not grounds for denial of benefits under Notification. Importance of valid documentation emphasized.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the technical lapse of not producing the certificate at the time of clearance did not ... Denial of benefit of Notification No. 64/95 – alleged that appellant for not fulfilling the condition of producing the certificate at the time of clearance of the goods – Held that:- Perusal of the invoice number dated 24-12-2004 indicates the number and date of the certificate i.e. 25-10-2004 which goes to show that the appellant was in possession of the requisite certificate - appellant could not produce the same at the time of clearance which was produced subsequently along with ER-1 returns - if there is any lapse it is not more than a technical lapse and for technical lapse substantial benefit cannot be denied – in favor of assessee Issues involved:Appeal against Order-in-Appeal denying benefit of Notification for not producing requisite certificate at the time of clearance of goods.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, cleared ingots to the Indian Navy under an exemption Notification. The lower authorities denied the benefit as the appellant failed to produce the required certificate before clearance. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that they possessed the certificate at the time of clearance, even though it was submitted later with ER-1 returns. Citing a precedent, the appellant contended that substantial benefits cannot be denied for a technical lapse. The Addl. Commissioner reiterated the lower authorities' findings.Undisputedly, the appellant possessed the requisite certificate at the time of clearance, as evidenced by the invoice details. The certificate's authenticity was not questioned, and the Department did not challenge it at any stage. The appellant's failure to produce the certificate at the time of clearance was deemed a technical lapse, not a deliberate omission. Given that the appellant did not apply for the certificate post-clearance and the certificate's validity was not disputed, the Tribunal found the denial of benefits unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the technical lapse of not producing the certificate at the time of clearance did not warrant denying substantial benefits under the Notification. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of considering the circumstances and the validity of documentation in excise matters to ensure fair treatment for the parties involved.