2012 (12) TMI 434 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds appellants' exemption eligibility despite clerical error, emphasizing substantive criteria over technical mistakes.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the clerical error in the declaration form regarding the notification number did not ... Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. – area based exemption - Held that:- After field survey, the appellant was found eligible for exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. - merely because of inadvertent clerical error regarding Notification No. in the declaration filed for the purpose of exemption, the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-C.E., when he otherwise is eligible for the same – in favor of assessee Issues:1. Applicability of exemption notifications under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. Interpretation of declaration forms for availing excise duty exemptions.3. Consideration of clerical errors in declaration forms.4. Compliance with location-based exemption requirements.5. Legal consequences of technical errors in documentation.Analysis:1. The case involved the appellants engaged in manufacturing flexible packing material subject to Central Excise duty under specific notifications. The dispute arose due to a clerical error in the declaration form filed by the appellant, mentioning the wrong notification number, leading to a demand notice by the department.2. The appellant contended that despite the clerical mistake, they were eligible for exemption under the correct notification, supported by a field verification report and previous tribunal orders. The department argued that the incomplete declaration did not meet the requirements of the location-specific exemption notification.3. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had provided complete information regarding the location of their unit, including the Khasra number, in the documents submitted along with the declaration. The jurisdictional Superintendent's verification report also confirmed the appellant's eligibility for the exemption.4. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court judgment cited by the Revenue, emphasizing that the clerical error in the notification number did not invalidate the appellant's eligibility for the exemption under the correct notification. The focus should have been on whether the appellant fulfilled the conditions for exemption under the relevant notification.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the technical consideration of the incorrect notification number in the declaration was not sufficient to deny the appellant the benefit of the exemption they were otherwise eligible for. The impugned order was set aside, emphasizing the importance of focusing on the substantive eligibility criteria rather than technical errors in documentation.