TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Deputy Commissioner with a copy to the Jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise and since during the period of dispute, neither this declaration had been filed nor any other intimation had been given by the appellant to the department regarding availment of the exemption under this notification, they were not eligible for this exemption during the period of dispute, as they had filed the required declaration only on 14-3-2008. On this basis, the Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dated 14-2-2012 confirmed the duty demand including education cess, of Rs. 1,77,08,029/- along with interest and beside this, while penalty of equal amount was imposed on the appellant company under Section 11AC, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Satyabrat Swain, General Manager of appellant company and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the appellant company under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This duty demand was confirmed by the Commissioner by invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 holding that the non-payment of duty by the appellant was on account of wilful suppression of facts on their part. Against this order of the Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. Shri I. Baig, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, opposed the stay applications by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order and emphasised that the condition regarding filing of declaration by the assessee to the Jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner with a copy to Superintendent, Central Excise giving the details regarding name and address of the manufacturer, location of the factory, description of the specified goods manufactured and the date from which the option to avail the exemption under this notification has been exercised, is required to be given as per the condition in para 1 of the notification, that when a particular exemption is available subject to fulfilling certain conditions and if those conditions have not been fulfilled, the exemption cannot be allowed, that the filing of declaration cannot be said to be mere technical and procedural formality, as filing of declaration by the assessee availing of exemption under this notification is meant to enable the department to ascertain as to whether the assessee is eligible for the exemption or not, that the condition of filing of declaration is therefore a substantiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacturer; (b) locations/locations of factory/factories; (c) description of inputs; (d) description of specified goods produced; (e) date on which the option under this notification has been exercised. (iii) the manufacturer may for the current financial year submit his option in writing on or before 30th November 2003. Para 2 of the notification mentions the units to which this exemption shall apply. In this case there is no dispute that the goods manufactured by the appellant company are other than those specified in Annexure I to the notification and the unit is located in the industrial areas notified in Annexure II. The dispute is only about fulfilling of the conditions prescribed in para 1 of the notification i.e. filing of declaration for availment of this exemption before the effecting the first clearances. The appellant's plea is that the conditions prescribed in para 1 of the notification are of purely procedural and technical conditions and the substantive benefit of the exemption notification cannot be denied for the period of dispute, just because du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... condoned, if such non-observance facilitates commission of fraud and introduces administrative inefficiency and inconvenience. In this case, the Apex Court observed that having failed to file the necessary declaration, the petitioner cannot claim the concession and ask the authorities to make verification of some records, as the verification at the time when the raw material was still there, is entirely different from the verification at a belated stage after it has ceased to be there, may be the raw material was used in the industrial undertaking as claimed by the petitioner company or may be it was not so used and in any event, the failure to file the necessary declaration prevented the authorities to have proper verification. We are of prima facie view that the ratio of this judgment of the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, as in this case only when an assessee files the required declaration before starting the availment of the exemption, the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities can verify as to whether the assessee is eligible for exemption or not. 7. As regards the question of limitation, we find that there is no dispute about the fact ....