Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Hy-Tuf Steels (P) Ltd. vs Cce on 3 April, 2007
ORDER Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty of 11,058/- and personal penalty of an identical amount, I proceed to decide the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.
2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of steel bars and cleared 18 consignments of M.S. bars at Nil rate of duty in terms of exemption notification No. 16/2001-CE dated 26.03.01, which granted exemption to the goods supplied for the purpose of reconstruction, or repair of private buildings in the earthquake affected area, subject to fulfillment of conditions enumerated therein. One of the conditions of the notification is to the effect that the assessee is required to submit a certificate from the managing director or the released commissioner to the effect that the goods have been used for the specified purpose. The said certificates were produced by the appellant and the benefit has been extended to all the consignments except the one covered by delivery challan No. 466 dated 3.9.01. The denial of the benefit of exemption is on the ground that whereas delivery challan shows the quantity removed on 9.980 MTs, quanity shown in the utilization certificate is 9.925 MTs. As such, the authorities below have observed that since the quantity in the two documents do not tally, benefit of exemption notification is not available to the appellant.
3. I have seen the certificate issued by the relief manager detailing therein receipts of the goods under the cover of various lorry receipts and delivery challans. The number of lorry receipts as also delivery challans fully tally with the documents, as shown by the appellant. However, as regards the quantity of the goods, there is a minor difference in the 2nd and 3rd decimal point. The appellant explained that the same might have happened inadvertently by the person issuing certificate and does not reflect upon the fact of non-receipt and non-utilisation of the goods in the earthquake hit area. I agree with the learned advocate that in as much as the other particulars in the certificate fully match with the particulars of the documents under which goods have been cleared and the quantity of the bars also matching in respect of the main weight in MTs and only differing in 2nd/3rd decimal point, the substantive benefit of notification can not be denied on the above minor discrepancy, especially when there is no other evidence on record to show that the goods have actually not been used for the purposes specified in the notification.
4. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order allowing appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Stay petition also gets disposed off.
(Pronounced in Court)