Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1214 - AT - Central ExciseDuty demand - Job work by SSI units - whether the non-fulfillment of conditions of Notification No. 214/1986-CE as also of Notification No. 83/1994-CE dated 11.04.94 can be held to be a procedural violation so as to extend the benefit of the Notification to the appellant - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- Benefit of Notification No. 121/1994, which prescribes a condition of following Chapter-x procedure for the purpose of claim of exemption, the Honble Supreme Court observed that the conditions prescribed therein are substantative and the procedures so envisaged in terms of Notifications are mandatory requirements to claim the benefit of exemption. The object of such prerequisites is to ensure that the goods are not diverted or utilized for some other purposes under the guise of exemption. While referring to the compliance of such condition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that test for determining applicability of substantial compliance doctrine is to examine the fact as to whether requirement relates to ‘substance’ or ‘essence’ of the Statute and if so, strict adherence to such requirements, is a precondition to give effect to the doctrine. By differentiating between the ‘mandatory’ and ‘directory’ condition of the Notification, it was observed that provisions of substantive character are built in with certain specific policy objectives, have to be distinguished from the provisions which are merely procedural and technical nature. Demand in the first case stands issued by invoking longer period of limitation. As during the relevant period there were some of the decisions laying down that the benefit of Notification in question can be extended even if the conditions were not satisfied, we hold that no specific suppression or mis-statement, with malafide intent can be, prima facie, attributed to the appellants so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. We are informed that an amount of around ₹ 6,00,000/- may fall within the limitation period. However, two demands to the extent of around ₹ 1.75 crores and ₹ 46 lakhs fall within the limitation period. - Partial stay granted.
|