TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules delay in filing statement not grounds for denial of self-credit .01/2010-CE</h1> <h3>Saraswati Agro Chemicals India Ltd Versus CCE, Jammu & Kashmir</h3> Saraswati Agro Chemicals India Ltd Versus CCE, Jammu & Kashmir - TMI Issues Involved:1. Non-compliance with the condition of filing a statement by the 15th day of the subsequent month under Notification No.01/2010-CE.2. Denial of self-credit due to procedural lapses.3. Determination of whether the conditions are substantive or procedural.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Non-compliance with the condition of filing a statement by the 15th day of the subsequent month under Notification No.01/2010-CE:The appellants failed to file the required statement of utilization of credit and payment of duty by the 15th day of the subsequent month for the period from April 2015 to June 2015, as mandated by Notification No.01/2010-CE dated 6.2.2010. The delay ranged from 9 to 10 days. As a result, show cause notices were issued to deny the self-credit taken by the appellants. The adjudicating authority initially sanctioned the self-credit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) later disallowed it due to the failure to meet the filing deadline.2. Denial of self-credit due to procedural lapses:The appellants argued that the denial of self-credit was based solely on the procedural lapse of late filing, which should not negate the substantive benefit of the notification. They cited precedents where similar conditions in other notifications (No.32/99-CE and No.33/99-CE) were deemed procedural. The Tribunal in the cases of Vinay Cement Ltd. and K.K. Beverages Pvt. Ltd. held that procedural lapses should not result in the denial of substantive benefits. The appellants also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., which distinguished between substantive and procedural conditions, asserting that procedural lapses should not lead to denial of benefits.3. Determination of whether the conditions are substantive or procedural:The Tribunal examined Notification No.01/2010-CE and compared it with Notifications No.32/99-CE and No.33/99-CE, which had similar procedural requirements. The Tribunal observed that the condition to file a statement by a specific date is procedural. The Tribunal cited previous decisions, including those of the Supreme Court and the CESTAT, which consistently held that procedural delays should not result in the denial of substantive benefits. The Tribunal also noted that the Ministry had not admitted similar objections in other cases, reinforcing the view that procedural delays are not grounds for denying benefits.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that condition 5(d) of Notification No.01/2010-CE is procedural in nature. The delay in filing the required statement does not justify the denial of self-credit. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.Final Judgment:The appeals were allowed, and the denial of self-credit was overturned, providing consequential relief to the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not negate the substantive benefits of the notification.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
