2001 (8) TMI 231 - AT - Central Excise

Notification 108/95 excise exemption for cleared goods: late certificate filed before adjudication accepted; revenue appeal dismissed

The dominant issue was whether exemption under Notification No. 108/95 could be denied solely because the prescribed certificate was not produced at the ... Eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 108/95 - Exemption subject to production of certificate - delay in obtaining from the Govt. of India - Seeking stay of the operation of the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT:- We notice that the appellant had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 108/95, dated 20-11-1995 without producing the requisite certificate in advance to the Department at the time of clearance of the goods and for that reason the Asstt. Commissioner did not accept the late production on 5-1-2000 after clearance of the goods but before the adjudication of the order. In view of the laid down proposition of the Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers [1991 (8) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] and also in the Tribunal's judgment rendered in the case of Birla Institute of Technology [1991 (4) TMI 240 - CEGAT, NEW DELHIQ] we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner. He has rightly followed the judgment and Revenue has not made out any other grounds as to why the said judgments does not apply to the facts of the case. Therefore, while rejecting the stay application, we take up the appeal and respectfully following the judgment noted above we do not find any merits in the revenue's appeal and dismiss the same. Issues Involved: The issues involved in this case are the eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 108/95, dated 20-11-1995, the requirement of producing a certificate under the notification, and the timing of certificate submission in relation to the clearance of goods.Summary:Eligibility for Benefit of Notification:The Revenue filed a stay application seeking to stay the operation of an order-in-appeal that granted them the benefit of Notification No. 108/95. The Commissioner allowed the appeal based on the production of a certificate after goods clearance but before adjudication. The Asstt. Commissioner had rejected the certificate for not being produced at the time of clearance. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had claimed the benefit without producing the requisite certificate in advance to the Department at the time of clearance, leading to the Asstt. Commissioner's rejection of the late production after goods clearance.Requirement of Certificate Production:The Revenue argued that the certificate should have been produced at the time of goods clearance, as per the notification. The appellant contended that the requirement was procedural and not a substantive violation. They cited a Tribunal judgment that accepted late production of a certificate in a similar circumstance as only a procedural requirement.Timing of Certificate Submission:The Tribunal referred to a case law and the Apex Court judgment in Mangalore Fertilizers & Chemicals v. Deputy Commissioner, emphasizing that substantive compliance of the notification is crucial. The Tribunal held that delay in submission of the certificate will not affect the grant of exemption, as long as there is substantive compliance. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no merit in their arguments against the late submission of the certificate.This judgment highlights the importance of substantive compliance with notification requirements and the distinction between procedural and substantive violations in claiming benefits under specific notifications.