2015 (10) TMI 2144 - HC - Central Excise

Court emphasizes intent and compliance over technical errors in Central Excise Notification case.

Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise Versus M/s Rhydburg Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

The Court allowed the application for condonation of delay in appealing, emphasizing the sufficiency of reasons provided. Regarding Central Excise ... Denial of benefit of Notification - wrong mention of notification no. in the declaration - conditional exemption under notification No. 49/2003, dated 10th June, 2003 - Held that:- Before first clearance, the respondent industry submitted a declaration with the appellant holding out that it is seeking to take advantage of the said Notification, but did not mention the number and date of the said Notification. Excise Department, on receipt of the said declaration, duly understood the purport thereof and proceeded on the basis that the said declaration has been submitted under the said Notification and before first clearance. In the declaration, the number of the said Notification and the date thereof was not mentioned, instead the number of some other Notification and date thereof crept in. - The fact remains that there is no dispute that the declaration was submitted before the first clearance. There is also no dispute that the purport of the declaration was to take benefit of the said Notification. The fact remains that even after receipt of the said declaration, Excise Department proceeded on the basis that the purport and intent of the said declaration was to take advantage of the said Notification. That being the situation, merely because the number of the Notification mentioned in the declaration was other than the number of the Notification mentioned above, respondent could not be denied the benefit of the said Notification. - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.2. Interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 49/2003 regarding exemption from excise duty.3. Compliance with conditions prescribed in the Notification for availing benefits.Condonation of Delay:The Court allowed the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal after considering the sufficiency of the reasons provided for the delay.Interpretation of Central Excise Notification:The Central Excise Notification No. 49/2003 exempted industries from paying excise duty on goods produced, with a condition that a declaration must be submitted before the first clearance to seek exemption. The respondent industry submitted a declaration before the first clearance, indicating its intent to benefit from the Notification, although it did not mention the correct Notification number and date. Despite this discrepancy, the Excise Department understood the declaration's purpose and proceeded as if it was submitted under the correct Notification. The Court held that the respondent should not be denied the benefit of the Notification solely based on the incorrect mention of the Notification number, especially when the intent was clear and the declaration was submitted before the first clearance.Compliance with Notification Conditions:The Court emphasized that the essence of compliance with the Notification was fulfilling the prescribed conditions, rather than just mentioning the Notification number and date. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Court highlighted that the Excise Department failed to consider the actual requirements of the law while taking action against the respondent. The Tribunal's decision aligning with this interpretation was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In summary, the judgment addressed the issues of condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, the correct interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 49/2003, and the importance of complying with the conditions specified in the Notification for availing benefits. The Court stressed that the focus should be on fulfilling the substantive requirements of the law rather than technical discrepancies like incorrect Notification numbers. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed in favor of the respondent, emphasizing the significance of intent and compliance over minor errors in documentation.