2026 (8) TMI 642

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ludhiana, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the appeal of the department by setting aside the Order-in-Original dated 11.12.2015 vide which the Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the refund/self-credit claims of the Appellant under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002. Since the issue involved in all seven appeals is identical and there is a common impugned order, therefore, all appeals are being taken up together for discussion and decision. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant are engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under Chapter Heading 25232910 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d and sanctioned the amount as refundable to the Appellant by way of credit in terms of the Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 (as amended). Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) contending that delayed filing of statements violated mandatory conditions of the notification requiring strict compliance with exemption notifications. The Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal, has set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed appeal of the department. Being aggrieved by the said impugned Order-in-Appeal, the Appellant have filed the present appeals before us. 3. Heard both sides and perused the material on records. 4. The learned Consultant for the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....micals India Ltd vs. CCE & ST, J&K [Final Order Nos. 60140-60150/2018 dated 27.02.2018] wherein the Tribunal, while interpreting the analogous area-based exemption Notification No. 1/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010, has held that the requirement of filing the prescribed statement is procedural in nature and the delay in such filing cannot defeat the substantive benefit of exemption notification when the assessee is otherwise eligible. He further submits that the decision of the Tribunal in M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals India Ltd (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Tribunal in the following cases: * Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. CCE & ST, J&K - [2019 (370) ELT 575 (Tri. Chan.)] * M/s Kaiser Industries Ltd vs. CCE & ST, J....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filing cannot defeat the substantive benefit of exemption notification when the assessee is otherwise eligible. Relevant findings of the Tribunal in the said case are as under: "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 06.02.2010 is similar to other notifications which are in the manner of procedure to be followed by the appellant wherein the appellant is required to file certain documents before a particular date. If such documents are filed with a delay, in that circumstance, it is only a procedural lapse on the part of the appellant, and the benefit of notification cannot be denied to the appellant. ....