TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on for availing of re-credit as per Para 2D(c) of the Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25-04-2007 was submitted to the department on 04-04-2017. 4. Thereafter, the department issued a verification certificate being Verification Certificate No. 01/Zydus Wellness/2017-18 dated 23-04-2018 holding that the Appellant violated Para 2D(c) of the Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25-04-2007 by sending intimation after making 1st clearance. Accordingly, self-credit of Rs. 2,57,20,735/- and Rs. 2,20,17,589/-availed in April 2017 and May 2017 respectively was held to be irregular. 5. The Appellant being aggrieved by such certificate preferred an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Siliguri. 6. During the pendency of the appeal, the department issued SCN dated 03-04-2019 to the Appellant to proposing to recover this amount of irregularly availed self-credit 7. Vide OIO dated 05-12-2019, the aforesaid SCN was dropped by the Ld. Commissioner, CGST & C.Ex., Siliguri by holding that delay in intimation is only a procedural lapse and for this substantive benefit of exemption should not be denied to the Appellant. 8. Being aggrieved by the OIO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacturer in his account current, by the 7th of the month following the month under consideration; (c) a manufacturer who intends to avail the option under clause (a) shall exercise his option in writing for availing such option before effecting the first clearance in any financial year and such option shall be effective from the date of exercise of the option and shall not be withdrawn during the remaining part of the financial year." 7. On going through the said notification the appellant was required to give in writing for availing such option before availing the first clearance in the Financial Year. Admittedly the said intimation has been given by the appellant to the delay of 3 days. In that circumstances issue arises whether the benefit of notification can be denied to the appellant or not. The said issue has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of CGST, Siliguri versus M/s. Microlab Limited, 2026 (1) TMI 1072-CESTAT, Kolkata wherein this Tribunal observed as under: "6. We find that the issue has been examined in this Tribunal in the case of Saraswati Agro Chemicals India Ltd. (Supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this notification shall be given effect to in the following manner. namely:- (a) The manufacturer shall submit a statement of the duty paid by utilization of Cenvat credit, on each category of goods specified in the said Table and cleared under this notification, to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, by the 7th of the next month in which the duty has been paid... Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 8.7.1999: 2C. The exemption contained in this notification shall be given effect to in the following manner, namely:- (a) The manufacturer shall submit a statement of the total duty paid by utilisation of CENVAT credit, on each category of goods specified in the Table and cleared under this notification, to the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, by the 7th of the next month in which the duty has been paid. 9. As the conditions 2C of the Notification No.32/99-CE and Notification No.33/99-CE dated 8.7.1999 are similar with condition 5(d) of Notification No.01/2010-CE. This Tribunal has examined the Notification No.32/99-CE a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als) that the Hon ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Mangalore Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. that a distinction has to be made between substantive mandatory policy consideration and those in the area of procedure. The notification required the assessee to submit statements of duties paid under PLA by 7th of the following month. Nothing more is required to be done by the assessee for claiming the benefit. RT-12 retums were submitted to the range superintendent and as such we hold that late filing of a separate statement by itself will not result in denial of the substantive benefit, otherwise available to the respondents. There is no allegation much less any finding that the respondents have not fulfilled the substantive conditions of the notification. We also take note of the Tribunal s Order No. A-246/KOL/2001, dt. 26-4-2001 (2002 (147) E.LT. 724 (Tribunal)) wherein the Revenue s appeal filed on the identical ground in respect of the same notification was rejected. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in all the three appeals of the Revenue and reject the same 11. We also take note of the decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n cannot be denied merely for procedural delay of a technical nature. Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. DC (1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC)] has enunciated that while granting the exemption, the distinction is required to be made between a procedural condition of a technical nature and a substantive condition and has held that non-observance of procedural condition of technical nature is condonable Similarly, the CESTSAT in its decision in the case of: (I) CCE, Shillong Vs. K.K. Beverages Pvt.Ltd. (2002 (148) ELT 567 (T-Kol)) (II) CCE, Shillong Vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2002 (147) ELT 724 (T)) 3. In view of the above, the objection may be dropped Approved by Special Secretary to Govt. of India (F.No.232/290/2008-CX.7)* 5. Since the objection was being contested by the department, the present show cause notice, of protective nature, was issued on 10.03.2010, wherein it was proposed to recover the wrongly availed credit of duty amounting to 2,32,12,642/- in terms of provisions of Para 2C (g) of the said Notification. It was also proposed to impose penalty under Rule 27 of Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ro Chemicals India Ltd. vs.CCE J & K, 2018 (3) TMI 263-CESTAT, Chandigarh this Tribunal again examined the issue and observed as under: "7. We have examined the notification No.01/2010-CE dated 6.2.2010. For better appreciation, the relevant conditions 5(d), 5(e) and 5(f) of the Notification are reproduced below: "(d) the manufacturer shall submit a statement of the total duty payable as well as the duty paid by utilization of CENVAT credit or otherwise and the credit taken as per clause (a), on each category of goods manufactured and cleared under the notification and specified in the said Table, to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, by the 15th day of the month in which the credit has been so taken, (e) the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, after such verification, as may be deemed necessary, shall determine the amount correctly refundable to the manufacturer and intimate to the manufacturer by the 15th day of the next month to the month in which the statement under clause (d) has been submitted. in case the cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.7.1999 are similar with condition 5(d) of Notification No.01/2010-CE. This Tribunal has examined the Notification No.32/99-CE and Notification No.33/99-CE dated 8.7.1999 in the case of Vinay Cement Limited (supra) and observed as under:- 3. The dispute, in the present case is as regards the availability of Notification No. 33/99 dated 8-7-99 to the respondents. The Revenue s contention is that inasmuch as the respondents have not fulfilled the condition no. 2(a) of the Notification in question, which requires them to submit a statement of the duty paid from account current to the Asst. Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, by the 7th of the next month in which the duty has been paid from account current, the benefit cannot be extended to them. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed in her impugned order that all the other conditions as regards the eligibility of the respondents to claim the benefit of Notification are fulfilled and the said conditions as contained in 2(a) of the Notification being only procedural condition, the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied to the respondents. 4. After giving our careful consideration to the issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d reject the same 11. We also take note of the decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under. ......Truly, speaking liberal and strict construction of an exemption provision are to be invoked at different stages of interpreting it. When the question is whether a subject fails in the notification or in the exemption clause then it being in nature of exception is to be construed strictly and against the subject but once ambiguity or doubt about applicability is lifted and the subject falls in the notification then full play should be given to it and it calls for a wider and liberal construction" 12. We also take note of the fact that in all the above case, similar issue was examined by the adjudicating authority in the case of M/s. Aroma Hightech Limited vide Order dated 7.2.2013 (supra) wherein it has been observed in as under: 3.1 During the CERA audit, vide para 1 of LAR No. 1823/2007 2008 dated: 04.01.2008, it was observed that as per Para 2C(d) of the said Notification the Noticee was required to submit a statement of the duty paid, other than by way o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12,642/- in terms of provisions of Para 2C (g) of the said Notification. It was also proposed to impose penalty under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 6. The Draft Audit Report No. 290/2007-2008 was included as Audit Para No.3.1 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ended March, 2007. In its Action taken the Ministry of vide its letter F.No. 232/290/2008-CX7 dated 27.10.2009 reiterated its comments earlier. 7. Finally, Sr.Adm. Officer (PAC). Office of the C&AG of India, New Delhi vide his letter No. 180H/PAG/ind. Tax/CEX/PAC/258-2008 dated 29.02.2012 informed the Ministry that the Ministry s ATN on Audit Para No.3.1 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ended March, 2007 has been vetted with no comments. The copy of the said comments was forwarded by Assistant Commissioner (PAC) vide his letter F.No. 232/290/2008-CX.7 dated 12.03.2012." 13. As the said issue has been examined by several authorities including the Apex Court wherein it has been held that condition 5(d) of Notification No.01/2010-CE dated 6.2.2010 is similar to other notifications which are in the manner of proce....