AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g option in writing to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner with copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise giving certain details. The appellant has not produced any evidence regarding filing of such option. Therefore, it was alleged that appellant is not eligible to avail benefit of said notification as they have not complied with the conditions. In that circumstances, show cause notice was issued to demand differential duty along with interest and to impose penalty on the appellant. The matter was adjudicated, duty was demanded along with interest and penalty was imposed. On appeal before the Id. Commissioner (Appeals), Id. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demands. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The Id. Counsel for the appellant submits that mere non-filing of declarations by the appellant cannot be fatal for the appellant to deny exemption under the notification in question. It is his submission that the appellant has been filing ER-3 returns regularly and it has been shown that they are availing the benefit of notification by paying duty on concessional rates. In that circumstances, it is clear that the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the same should be construed liberally. 12. A notification like any other provision of a statute must be construed having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to achieve. For the aforementioned purpose, the statutory scheme in terms whereof such a notification has been issued should also be taken into consideration. 20. We, as noticed hereinbefore, have no quarrel with the proposition that exemption notification should be construed strictly which means that benefit thereof should not be granted to one, who is not entitled therefore. But it is also true that those who are entitled to the benefit cannot be deprived therefrom by taking recourse to the doctrine of narrow interpretation simplicitor, although the purpose and object thereof would be defeated thereby. In Kartar Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise. New Delhi [2006 (197) E.L.T. 151 = (2006) 4 SCC 772], this Court held : "... It is trite to say that exemption notification has to be construed strictly. Since the notification came into effect from 11-4-1994, the benefit of the notification cannot be extended to the appellants retrospectively w.e.f. 1-3-1994." In Eagle Flask Industries Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect of the notification is to encourage the utilisation of rice bran oil in the process of manufacture of soap in preference to various other kinds of oil (mainly edible oils) used in such manufacture and this should not be defeated by an unduly narrow interpretation of the language of the notification even when it is clear that rice bran oil can be used for manufacture of soap only after its conversion into fatty acid or hydrogenated oil." From the above, it can be seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the assessee cannot be deprived of the benefits by taking recourse to the doctrine of narrow interpretation simplicitor, thereby the purpose and object thereof would be defeated. We further find that in the similar facts, in the case of Kanodia Polychem (P) Limited (supra), this Tribunal has held as under:- "4. Having considered the rival contentions and in view of the uncontroverted fact that the appellant have availed exemption on the clearance of the un-branded goods and have paid full rate of duty on clearance of branded goods, we hold that the appellant have not violated the provisions of Notification No.9/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003. Accordingly, we hold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom which option under this notification has been exercised; (f) aggregate value of clearances of specified goods (excluding the value of clearances referred to in para 3 of this notification) till the date of exercising the option; 10. In this context, it would be pertinent to refer to the case of CCE, New Delhi Vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and others - 2010 (260) ELT 3 (SC), wherein the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the matter of exemption under Notification No.121/94-CE and also the pre-conditions for entitlement to avail such exemption. While deciding the said matter, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Tribunal has committed an error in overlooking the object and purpose of the procedure laid down in Chapter X. It was also held that detailed procedures have been laid down in Chapter X so as to curb the diversion and misutilisation of goods which are excisable. Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the scope and ambit of Chapter X and while laying down the aforesaid conclusions also laid down certain guidelines. In the said case, the court has clearly held that the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal was wrong and illegal. In this cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exemption under this notification, i.e., to pay duty at 60% of the normal rate of duty at the beginning of the financial year itself and the option once exercised, cannot be changed in the same financial year. Needless to emphasize that the condition to exercise the option is the basis for availing the benefit of the exemption notification, and therefore, ought to be complied with so as to be eligible for the benefit of the said notification. The condition 2 is mandatory one is further clear from a reading of sub-clause (iii) along with the illustrations enumerated thereunder. Therefore, the said condition 2 cannot be designated as a mere procedural one and to avail the benefit of the notification need not be fulfilled. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd.'s case (supra), while considering the eligibility to the Notification No.10/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002, observed as follows. "4. We find that the Tribunal has decided the case in favour of the assessee by observing that clearing of goods with payment of Excise duty with current account was only an error and the assessee had not violated the more substantial condition ....