Mandatory time-bound exemption declaration barred retrospective benefit, while Cenvat credit eligibility was remanded for fresh verification.

Notification No. 50/2003 required the assessee to exercise the option and file the declaration within the prescribed time for verification at the start of commercial production, and those conditions were treated as mandatory; retrospective extension of the exemption was therefore not permissible where the declaration was filed more than four years late, and the exemption claim was rejected. Separately, the Tribunal noted that Cenvat credit on duty paid during the relevant period could still be examined if the prescribed conditions were satisfied, so that aspect was remanded to the Original Authority for verification on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003 could be granted retrospectively despite a belated declaration beyond the stipulated date; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to Cenvat credit on the duty paid during the relevant period and the matter required reconsideration by the Original Authority.

Issue (i): Whether the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003 could be granted retrospectively despite a belated declaration beyond the stipulated date.

Analysis: The notification required the assessee to exercise the option and file the declaration within the prescribed time so that verification could be made at the commencement of commercial production. The declaration was filed after more than four years, and the requirements of the notification were treated as mandatory. Retrospective extension of the benefit on the basis of a delayed declaration was therefore not permissible.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 50/2003 was rightly denied and the assessee's claim for retrospective application was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to Cenvat credit on the duty paid during the relevant period and the matter required reconsideration by the Original Authority.

Analysis: While sustaining the denial of the notification benefit, the Tribunal held that duty paid for the period under consideration could give rise to Cenvat credit if the prescribed conditions were satisfied and the claim was verified on merit. The issue therefore required examination by the Original Authority.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Original Authority for examination of the Cenvat credit claim in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The assessee did not succeed on the claim for retrospective exemption, but obtained a limited remand for consideration of Cenvat credit, leaving the impugned order otherwise intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal notification prescribes a mandatory time-bound option and verification mechanism, its benefit cannot be extended retrospectively on the basis of a delayed declaration, though independent credit entitlement may still be examined separately on remand.

---