2015 (12) TMI 652 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal emphasizes procedural compliance & grants exemption, rejecting Revenue's arguments.

ESS ESS INDUSTRIES, NALAGARH Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., CHANDIGARH-I

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of meeting procedural conditions and eligibility for exemptions under ... Area Based Exemption - Declaration intending the availment the exemption notification 50/2003 was filed after 31-3-2010 - Held that:- Revenue further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders [2004 (2) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. No doubt filing of declaration is a condition precedent. But the appellant in the present case did not fail to file the declaration as is apparent from page 48 of appeal folder. Revenue also relied on the decision of apex court in the case of Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corporation [1991 (9) TMI 162 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. The ratio thereon is that the procedure prescribed cannot be given go-bye. We have no difference to such proposition. - present case is plain and simple and is governed by first principle of eligibility followed by procedural condition fulfilled by communication dated 30-3-2010 - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 50/2003 when the declaration was filed after the specified date.Analysis:The appeal in question revolved around the issue of whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 50/2003 when the declaration intending to avail the exemption was filed after the specified date. The appellant's counsel acknowledged the delay in filing the declaration and suggested that if there were difficulties in considering the declaration for the relevant financial year, the appellant should be allowed the benefit from the subsequent financial year. Additionally, the appellant sought the benefit of SSI exemption for the concerned financial year. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that there were multiple issues at play, although the appellate order did not reflect any such complexity beyond the specific issue mentioned in para 9.The appellate authority confirmed that the declaration was indeed filed after the specified date and before the first clearance. However, the appellant was not denied the SSI benefit, and it was argued that considering the declaration and granting benefits in line with Notification No. 50/2003 was justified. The Revenue relied on a Tribunal decision and a Supreme Court judgment to support its position, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements. Nevertheless, the Tribunal found the case straightforward, emphasizing the principle of eligibility followed by the fulfillment of procedural conditions through the communication dated 30-3-2010. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the Revenue's arguments did not hold merit in the given circumstances.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of meeting procedural conditions while also recognizing the fundamental principle of eligibility for exemptions under the relevant notification. The Tribunal's decision was based on a straightforward analysis of the facts and applicable legal principles, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal in favor of the appellant.