TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact 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. Hence exemption is allowed to be claimed under Notification No. 50/2003-CE. - 50 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Rep. by Sh. R.K. Hasija, Advocate for the appellants. Rep. by Sh. N. Pathak, DR for the respondent. Per: Archana Wadhwa: Both sides submit that there is no confirmation of demand of duty in the present proceedings, requiring any dispensation with the pre-deposit in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The impugned order denies the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the are of Uttarakhand, two area based exemption notification being exemption Notification No. 49/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 and Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 stands issued by the Government of India granting exemption to the units located in the States of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The appellant being located in the state of Uttarakhand are admittedly entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003. The said notifications require an assessee to file declarations before claiming the benefit of said notification. The appellant filed a declaration with their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities for claiming the benefit of the said notification. However, instead of mentioning Notification No. 50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above the Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 prescribe following condition. The manufacturer who intends to avail the exemption under this notification shall exercise his option in writing before effecting the first clearance and such option shall be effective from the date of exercise of the option and shall not be withdrawn during the remaining part of the financial year . It is an admitted fact on record that the party did not seek exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 nor did they file any declaration seeking exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003. For this reason alone the party is not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 at this stage w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of duty of excise. 9. The contention of the appellant is that Notification No. 49/2003-CE was filed by mistake and notification number should have been mentioned as 50/2003-CE. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that said mistake was detected by the revenue after a period of around three years. Inasmuch as the said mistake is only a procedural mistake relating to No. of notification the substantial benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE should not be denied to them. 10. We agree with the above contentions of learned Advocate. The requirement of filing a declaration is a procedural condition. The benefit of the notification is not based upon the said procedural requirement of filing a declaration. In any case, declar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
