Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Keshari Wire Products (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 27 November, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(160)ELT180(TRI-KOLKATA)
ORDER Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 33,902/- (Rupees thirty three thousand nine hundred and two) and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) we take the appeal itself for final disposal with the consent of both the sides.
2. The short point involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to avail the exemption benefit of Notfn. No. 9/99-C.E., dated 28-2-99 for the period 1-4-99 to 8-4-99, when the intimation under the said notification was filed by them only on 9-4-99. The Revenue has confirmed the demand of duty against the appellant on the ground that as per conditions contained in the said exemption notification, the assessee, who intends to avail the exemption was required to intimate his option in writing for availing the exemption before effecting the first clearances and such option shall be effective from the date of exercise of the option and shall not be withdrawn during the remaining part of the financial year. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. consultant appearing for the appellant submits that an identical notification was issued during the preceding financial year and they were availing the benefit of the same. With the start of the new financial year they availed the benefit of Notfn. No. 9/99 and filed the declaration on 9-4-99. He submits that late filing of declaration was only a procedural lapse on the part of the appellant and would not result in denial of substantive benefit, otherwise available to the appellants. He submits that inasmuch as it was a continuation of the exemption available to them during the financial year and they continued to avail the same during the next financial year, that was sufficient intimation to the Revenue of their intention to avail the notification in question.
3. Shri A.K. Mondal, ld. SDR appears for the Revenue and submits that the notification is applicable only when the conditions of the same are fulfilled. Inasmuch as the appellants have intimated the Revenue only on 9-4-99, the benefit of the notification has been rightly denied to them for the period prior to the date of filing the intimation.
4. We have considered the submissions made from both the sides and have gone through the impugned order. No doubt the notification requires the manufacturers to file an intimation to the Revenue of their intention to avail the benefit, we are of the view that the said condition is only a procedural requirement, the contravention of which will not result in denial of substantive benefit of the exemption to the appellant. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant had opted for exemption under the said notification by their declaration filed under Rule 173B vide their letter dt. 9-4-99, they would be bound by the condition of the notification and they will not be able to withdraw the said option during the remaining part of the financial year. The filing of the declaration on 9-4-99 in our views would not affect the appellants' entitlement to the notification for the period 1-4-99 to 8-4-99. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay petition also gets disposed of.