Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Allied Bitumen Complex (India) Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 20 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(141)ELT373(TRI-KOLKATA)
JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. As a very short point involved in the present appeal we take up the appeal itself after dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty amount of Rs.94,789.85 (Rupees ninety four thousand seven hundred eighty nine and paise eight five only) and penalty of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). Accordingly we have heard Shri B.K. Munsi, learned Consultant for the applicants/appellants, and Shri A.K. Mondal, learned DR for the Revenue.
2. the benefit of Notification No.9/99-CE dated 28.2.99 has been denied to the appellant for the period 1.4.99 to 20.4.99 on the ground that the condition contained in para 2(i) of the Notification relating to the intimation in writing to the concerned officer about the availment of the Notification has not been fulfilled by the appellants. The said intimation was filed in writing with effect from 21.4.99 and as such the benefit has been extended only from that date.
3. Shri B.K. Munsi, learned Consultant submits that in their C/List filed on 1.3.99, they have very clearly claimed the benefit of Notfn. No.9/99-CE and as such the claiming of the benefit in the C/List amounts to intimating the Revenue in writing about their option to avail the benefit under the said Notification. Though a separate letter was filed on 21.4.99, the benefit should not have been denied to them in view of the fact that such benefit was claimed in the C/List itself. In support of his above submission he places reliance on the Tribunal's decision in the case of C.C.E., Mumbai- V v. Mini Electronic Inds. P. Ltd. - 2000 (39) RLT 617 (CEGAT).
4. After giving our careful consideration to the issue involved we fully agree with the learned Consultant. The appellants have duly intimated their option in writing to avail the benefit of Notification while claiming the same in their C/List filed on 1.3.99 effective from 1.4.99. There is no requirement in the Notification for filing a separate intimation letter. As such we are of the view that there is a substantive fulfilment of the relevant condition of the Notification. The benefit cannot be denied to the appellants in these circumstances. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
(Dictated & pronounced in Court)