TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (12) TMI 245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s. Suburban Engineering Works (Calcutta) Pvt. Ltd. who are the respondents in the present proceedings. By his impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) allowed their appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-H Division, Calcutta-I Collectorate and held that they were eligible for refund of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 23,280/- which they had paid while clearing "Bath Heater" to M/s. Gansons Ltd. Refund had been claimed by them in terms of Notification No. 211/85-C.E., dated 24-9-1985 applicable to goods required for oil exploration activities by Oil and Natural Gas Commission or Oil India Limited. The refund claim had been rejected by the Assistant Collector holding that the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the appeal may be allowed setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and restoring the Order-in-Original of the Assistant Collector. 5. Shri A. Choudhury, learned Departmental Representative argued the case on behalf of the Appellant Collector. He adopted the reasoning spelt out in the appeal and pleaded that it may be allowed. 5A. Shri P. R. Biswas, learned Consultant for the respondents opposed the appeal. He submitted that when the goods were cleared the respondents did not know about the exemption notification. They were sub-contractors for M/s. Gansons Ltd. and had accordingly supplied the goods to them. The latter were contractors for M/s. Oil India Ltd. When the respondents supplied the goods to M/s. Gansons they did not pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Appeals) would appear to be a realistic and legally correct decision. The appeal by the department may, therefore, be dismissed, he urged. 6. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of both the sides. As pointed out by Shri Biswas, learned Consultant for the respondents, the thrust of many decisions of various Courts and Tribunal on the question of admissibility of benefits under exemption notifications is in favour of allowing the benefit on the basis of substantial compliance with the requirements of the notification notwithstanding certain procedural failure or omission. 7. Apart from the three decisions cited by the learned Consultant for the respondent, similar issues have been decided in the following cases : (1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Exemption permissible by way of refund. (7) 1987 (31) E.L.T. 117 Spl. Bench D - Meltron Semi Conductors Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay Exemption subject to functioning of bond for end use certificate. Bond not executed. Exemption admissible. (8) 1988 (33) E.L.T. 760 - Shri Hari Ram Paper Mills v. Collector of C.E., Meerut filing of declaration under Notification 80/80-C.E. not necessary when particulars required in declaration already filed with Department and asses-see obtained licence too. (9) 1988 (37) E.L.T. 243 (Tribunal) - Collector of Central Excise v. Vamsadara Paper Mills Ltd. Exemption Notification benefit not deniable if there has been s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C.E. Exemption not deniable for procedural lapses - Rejection of refund for non-compliance of the conditions of Chapter X procedure. When procedural aspects of Chapter X procedure have been substantially complied with, matter deserves to be considered on merits. 8. Out of the above cases, the case involving Auto Tractors Ltd. was decided by the Supreme Court, holding that where an exemption was not claimed and the condition prescribed was not fulfilled at the time of clearance of the goods, a subsequent refund claim was valid. 9. Going by the ratio laid down in the above-mentioned catena of decisions I hold that in the present case the failure to claim exemption from duty available in terms of the Notification in question, by itself c....