Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S. Nalagarh Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. ... on 2 May, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing:02.5.2013
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
authorities?
Excise Appeal No.E/3002/2005-Excie (DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.73/CE/2004 dated 25.09.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh.]
CCE, Chandigarh Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Nalagarh Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent
Appearance: Rep. by Ms. S. Bector, DR for the appellants.
Rep. by Shri Jay Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM:Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No.56294/2013 Dated:2.5.2013 Per Archana Wadhwa:
Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner, Revenue has filed the present appeal.
2. We have heard both the sides duly represented by Ms. S. Bector, DR for the Department/Appellant and Shri Jay Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.
3. The respondent are located in Himachal Pradesh and were entitled to area based exemption notification no.49/2003 and 50/2003, both dated 10.06.2003. In terms of the said notifications, they had filed due intimations to their central excise authorities in the month of July, 2003 itself for availing the benefit of the said notifications along with the detailed particulars of their address and goods to be manufactured by them and raw materials, etc. There is no dispute to the above facts.
4. However, subsequently, the said notifications were amended vide notification no.76/2003 dated 5.11.2003, which introduced a condition in the earlier notifications as regards the option to be exercised by an assessee for availment of the notifications no.49/2003 and 50/2003. As per the appellant, they filed a fresh option on 10.11.2003 under a UPC certificate, which according to the Revenue, has not been received by them. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them for non-filing of the option in terms of the said notification no.76/2003.
5. The Commissioner while adjudicating the matter observed that the assessee vide their earlier letters filed on 18.7.2003 and 23.8.2003 had intimated the Revenue with regard to commencement of trial production and manufacture of the finished products, etc. and their intention to avail benefit of notifications no.49/2003 and 50/2003. As such, without going into the factual aspect as to whether the assessee has subsequently filed a fresh declaration on 10.11.2003, the Commissioner held that such non-filing will not act fatal to the assessees interest.
6. For better appreciation, we reproduce para-15 of the order as under:-
15. I also observe that the pre-requisites of Notification No.49 & 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 (as amended by Notification no.76/2003-CE dated 5.11.2003) i.e. the manufacturer shall, while exercising the option under condition (i), inform in writing to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise giving particulars, namely (a) Name and address of the manufacturer; (b) Location/locations of factory/factories; (c ) description of inputs used in manufacture of specified goods; (d) description of the specified goods produced; (e) date on which option under this Notification has been exercised ; are very much contained in the letter dated 18.07.2003 addressed to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-III, Baddi, filed in the office of the Sector Officer, Central Excise, Nalagarh by the noticee. Therefore, I agree with the contention of the noticee that the procedural requirements of the Notification stand duly fulfilled and complied with. I also agree with reliance placed by the notice upon the Honble Tribunals judgement in the case of Metalfab Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi, the ratio of which squarely applies to this case. Accordingly, I hold that office of the Sector Officer is a part of the Asstt. Commissioners office, and the declaration filed before the Sector Officer is sufficient compliance with the requirement of Notification No.49 & 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 (as amended).
7. Revenue has not disputed the fact of filing the earlier declarations in the months of July and August, 2003.The only objection raised by the Revenue is that after introduction of the notification no.76/2003, the respondent should have filed a fresh declaration in terms of the said amended notification. We find no merits in the above contention of the Revnue. The whole ideal of filing a declaration and choosing an option under intimation to the department is that the Revenue is put to notice. This intention having been fulfilled by the appellant in the months of July and August, 2003 (though the respondent claimed to have filed the same subsequently also), would not result in denial of the benefit of notifications no.49/2003 and 50/2003, when the respondent fulfilled all the basics, essential and requisite conditions of the notifications as regards the location of the factory being in Himachal Pradesh. Such procedural contravention, if any, cannot result in denial of the substantive benefit of the notifications, if the same is otherwise available. As such, we find no infirmity in the views of the Commissioner and reject the Revenues appeal.
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member (Judicial) ( Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
2