Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2019 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 6 - HC - Central ExciseArea based exemption - proof of filing of declaration - exemption from payment of Central Excise under the Notification No. 50/03-CE, dated 10.06.2003 - whether the instant appeal raises a substantial question of law for adjudication by this Court? Held that:- Whether the appellant filed the 2nd Declaration on ‘13.04.2005’ or on ’13.05.2005’, is purely a question of fact. There is no gainsaying that an Exemption Notification ought to be construed strictly and the burden of proving its applicability lies on the assessee so as to establish that its case falls within the parameters of the exemption clause - Whosoever therefore seeks the benefit of exemption must always prove its admissibility. The appellant was obliged to establish that it had actually applied for the benefit of exemption under the Notification dated 10.06.2003 through 2nd Declaration filed on 13.04.2005 or that such a Declaration was available in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise. The appellant has miserably failed to discharge such onus. A plain reading of the Grounds of Appeal reveals that even the appellant was not sure about the actual date of filing of alleged 2nd Declaration, as the date of filing such Declaration claimed is ‘13.04.2005’ whereas in the later part comprising ‘Grounds of Appeal’, it is stated to be dated ‘13.05.2005’. The Postal Receipt may be relevant to assume that a letter was sent on 13.04.2005, but it falls short to prove the contents of the letter. The appellant has thus failed to discharge the initial onus cast on it. Such like disputes are essentially questions of fact and cannot be treated as substantial question of law for the purpose of maintainability of this appeal. It is well settled that “substantial question of law” would mean-of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with---technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely - thus, whether a party fairly disclosed the facts or suppressed or gave selective information, too are surely questions of fact and per se does not give rise to substantial question of law. Appeal dismissed.
|