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>Court overturns Central Excise orders, emphasizes distinction between substantive and procedural requirements</h1> <h3>M/s. Purbanchal Alloys Ltd. Versus Commissioner Central Excise, Byrnihat Shillong</h3> M/s. Purbanchal Alloys Ltd. Versus Commissioner Central Excise, Byrnihat Shillong - 2019 (367) E.L.T. 136 (Meghalaya) Issues Involved:1. Timeliness of the application for 'Special Rate' under Notification No.31/2008-CE.2. Substantial compliance versus procedural requirements.3. Applicability of the doctrine of substantial compliance.Detailed Analysis:1. Timeliness of the Application for 'Special Rate' under Notification No.31/2008-CE:The primary issue revolves around whether the appellant's application for the 'Special Rate' was filed within the permissible time frame. The appellant submitted the application on 23.09.2009, which was received by the Commissioner on 30.09.2009. However, the supporting documents were only submitted on 13.01.2010. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, rejected the application on the grounds of late submission, a decision upheld by the CESTAT. The court noted that the substantive requirement was to file the application by 30th September, which the appellant complied with. The supporting documents, considered procedural, were not required to be filed by the same date.2. Substantial Compliance Versus Procedural Requirements:The court emphasized the doctrine of substantial compliance, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in 'Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner' and 'Commissioner of C.EX., New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal.' The court argued that the substantive condition was the timely filing of the application, not the supporting documents. The delay in submitting supporting documents due to the auditor's sickness was deemed a procedural lapse, not affecting the application's validity.3. Applicability of the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance:The doctrine of substantial compliance was central to the court's decision. The court highlighted that the doctrine is designed to avoid undue hardship when a party has substantially met the requirements, even if there are minor procedural lapses. The court found that the appellant had met the substantive requirement by filing the application on time and that the late submission of supporting documents did not negate this compliance. The court referenced its earlier decision in 'M/s Mawthlliang Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong,' reinforcing that non-filing of supporting documents with the application should not be considered fatal.Conclusion:The court set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, and the CESTAT, Kolkatta, deeming them unsustainable. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, for a merits-based decision on the appellant's original application. The appeal was thus allowed, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between substantive and procedural requirements and the application of the doctrine of substantial compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
