1992 (7) TMI 195

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Division 'H', Bombay. The appellants are manufacturers of steel seats viz. front seat assembly, rear seat assembly, bucket seats, seat for passenger bus etc. designed for use in the automobile vehicles. They filed classification list No. 26/I.H./82 dt. 24-10-1983, 14/I.H./82 dt. 24-10-1983 and 11/84 dt. 7-3-1984 classifying the products under Tariff Item 40 and claimed the exemption as envisaged under Notification No. 91/68-C.E., dt. 30-4-1968. As these steel seats were being cleared without fixing frame cushion, upholstery, etc. and thus cannot be treated as fully manufactured seats but can be considered as frames and coiled springs and not complete to constitute car seats, all classification lists were approved provisionally under Tariff....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Niyamit v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 658 (Trib.) to say that unless it is deliberate and mala fide, failure on the part of the assessee to follow certain procedures cannot come in the way of his availing the substantive benefit under statutory provisions, as long as he can satisfy the department, even at a later date, that he fulfilled the essential requirements to establish his entitlement to such benefits. In the present case, the Sr. Counsel pointed out that, admittedly, the car seats produced by them were supplied to M/s. Premier Automobiles and even their inability to follow the Chapter X Procedure was attributable to the delay in the final approval of the classification list by the department making it impractic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....but the Notification No. 167/79 was denied on the ground that permission for availing of Chapter X Procedure had not been obtained and the procedure itself was not followed. In this context, the finding of the Tribunal in the case of Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit (supra) is relevant. In para 12 of the decision, the Tribunal has observed as follows: "The only reason on which the benefit of Notification under 118/75 has been denied by the Collector (Appeals) is that appellants did not follow the Chapter X procedure and they were required to satisfy the department regarding the use of steam in another factory of theirs. Unless, it is deliberate and mala fide, failure on the part of the assessee to follow certain procedures ....