9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der was also challenged by the appellant before the Hon ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. Vide their order dated 14.12.2010, the petition filed before the Hon ble High Court was dismissed with direction to the appellant to file an appeal before the Tribunal alongwith stay petition.. It also stands recorded by the Hon ble High Court that until one month from the date of passing of the order and until the stay application is decided by the appellate authority, the department is restrained from collection of excise duty at the time of removal of the goods from the factory of the appellant. 3. At this stage, learned Advocate submits that subsequent to the passing of present impugned order, proceedings for confirmation of demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned Notification No. 49/2003-CE. 6. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against them proposing denial of the benefit of notifications in questions on the ground that Notification No. 49/2003-CE does not cover the goods manufactured by the appellant. The appellant contended that reference to Notification No. 49/2003-CE, in their declaration, was inadvertent mistake and the same should be read as Notification No. 50/2003-CE. 7. The entire dispute evolves on the above sole question. The Commissioner while holding that the benefit of Notification No. 49/2003-CE is not admissible to the appellant has denied the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE on the sole ground that the declaration does not stand filed und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the condition under Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003. I place reliance on Hon ble CESTAT judgement in the matter of Noida Medicare Centre vs. CC, Delhi reported as 2007 (220) ELT 230 (Tri. Del.) wherein the Hon ble Tribunal has held that even non compliance with one condition disentitles benefit of exemption and examination of fulfillment of other conditions is not required . 8. As is seen from the above, the only ground for denial of benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 is that the appellant has not filed the requisite declarations and has not exercised his option in writing before effecting the first clearance. We note that admittedly a declaration in terms of Notification No. 49/2003-CE dated 10.06. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that Notification No. 49/2003-CE was mentioned instead of Notification No. 50/2003-CE, cannot be considered to be a mistake fatal to the appellant s claim of benefit. It is well settled law that the substantive benefit if otherwise available should not be disallowed on the basis of minor procedural irregularities. In the present case, we find that even such irregularity of non filing of declaration was not there.
11. In view of our foregoing discussions, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order disallowing the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE and allow the appeal itself.
12. Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in the above manner.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
