1987 (8) TMI 282 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Appellate Authority Rules in Favor of Rubber Manufacturers in Exemption Case

SUPERFLEX ENGG & POLYMERS PVT. LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF C. EX.

The appellate authority found in favor of the appellants, manufacturers of rubber products, in a case concerning entitlement to exemption under ... Small Scale Industry Exemption Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 175/86.2. Requirement of a formal declaration to opt out of MODVAT.3. Utilization of MODVAT credit and procedural lapses.4. Violation of principles of natural justice.5. Imposition of personal penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Exemption under Notification No. 175/86:The Assistant Collector determined that the appellants, manufacturers of rubber products registered as a small-scale industry, were not entitled to the exemption of the first 15 lakhs under Notification No. 175/86 as amended. The Assistant Collector's findings were based on the premise that the appellants had availed of MODVAT Credit in March 1986 and continued to do so in April 1986. However, the appellants contended that they had opted for full exemption in their classification list effective from 2-4-1986 and had not claimed MODVAT Credit in their R.G. 23A register for inputs received during 1986-87. The appellate authority found that the appellants' intention to avail of the exemption was clearly established by their R.T. 12 returns and classification list, which were duly approved by the competent authority. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 175/86.2. Requirement of a Formal Declaration to Opt Out of MODVAT:The Assistant Collector asserted that the appellants had not given any declaration to opt out of MODVAT from 1-4-1986, implying their intention to continue availing MODVAT. The appellants argued that there was no provision in the Central Excise Law or departmental instructions requiring such a declaration. They had made a declaration in their classification list effective from 2-4-1986, which was approved by the Assistant Collector. The appellate authority agreed with the appellants, stating that the absence of a formal declaration did not negate their entitlement to the exemption, especially since they had refunded the credit utilized.3. Utilization of MODVAT Credit and Procedural Lapses:The Assistant Collector concluded that the appellants' utilization of MODVAT credit in April 1986 indicated their intention to continue availing MODVAT, thus disqualifying them from the exemption. The appellants explained that the utilization of the credit was a mistake, and they had refunded the entire amount to the department in July 1986. The appellate authority noted that the appellants had not taken any credit after 31-3-1986 and had refunded the balance, viewing this as a procedural lapse rather than an intention to continue MODVAT. The authority emphasized that procedural lapses should not deprive the appellants of their right to claim the exemption.4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The appellants argued that the Assistant Collector's order violated the principles of natural justice, as he had ignored their pleas and the Board's clarificatory instructions. They cited case law to support their contention that substantive rights should not be extinguished due to technical or procedural lapses. The appellate authority found merit in the appellants' argument, noting that the Assistant Collector had omitted crucial pleas and clarifications, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. This omission rendered the Assistant Collector's order unsustainable.5. Imposition of Personal Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:The Assistant Collector imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 250/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for contraventions related to MODVAT credit utilization. The appellants contended that there was no material evidence of fraud, evasion of duty, or willful suppression of facts on their part. The appellate authority agreed with the appellants, stating that there was no justification for the penalty, as the appellants had availed of the exemption with the full knowledge and approval of the department. The penalty was set aside.Conclusion:The appellate authority concluded that the findings recorded by the Assistant Collector were not sustainable either in respect of the demand for Rs. 2,89,697.27 or the personal penalty. The authority emphasized the importance of providing guidance to industries to avoid procedural lapses and encouraged respect for the law. The Assistant Collector's order was set aside, and the appellants were entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 175/86.