TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption 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 . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 2. The facts as revealed from the order dated 25th April, 2017 passed by the Tribunal, are that with a view to avail exemption from payment of Central Excise under the Notification No. 50/03-CE, dated 10.06.2003 as a new Manufacturing Unit set up after 07.01.2003, the assessee in its Declaration filed on 25th November, 2004 had mentioned the goods falling under Sub-Head 3004 , namely, beauty or make-up preparations and preparations for the care of skin , which are non-specific. The Adjudicating Authority declined the benefit of exemption under the aforesaid Notification, but on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that it was a case of eligibility for exemption under the Notification dated 10.06.2003 of the goods manufactured and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not entitled to claim the benefit of exemption under Notification dated 10.06.2003 on these additional goods. Both the appeals were thus dismissed. 5. The Appellant thereafter filed Review Application pointing out, inter-alia, that there was an error apparent on the record as the Tribunal had proceeded on the premise that the appellant filed its 2nd Declaration on 13.05.2005 , whereas the said Declaration was filed on 13.04.2005 and there was enough proof comprising original postal receipt to prove the filing of such Declaration. 6. The Tribunal nonetheless was not convinced with the aforesaid factual plea and dismissed the appellant s Review Application observing as follows:- 4. On perusal of the records, we find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ughtful consideration to the rival submissions made against or for the maintainability of the appeal before High Court, we do not deem it necessary to dwell upon the issue as to whether the instant appeal falls within the four corners of Section 35-G or it shall lie to the Hon ble Supreme Court under Section 35-L of the Act. We say so for the reason that no appeal can be entertained even by the High Court under Section 35-G of the Act, unless it involves a substantial question of law. 11. What is thus needed to be determined firstly is - whether the instant appeal raises a substantial question of law for adjudication by this Court? 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant very strenuously urges that while deciding the Review Application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roving its applicability lies on the assessee so as to establish that its case falls within the parameters of the exemption clause [please see : (i) Collector of Customs versus Presto Industries (2001) 3 SCC 6 and (ii) Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai versus Dilip Kumar and Company others (2018) 9 SCC 1 ]. 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 [See: Boodireddy Chandraiah others versus Arigela Laxmi another (2007) 8 SCC 155 ]. 17. In any view of the matter, 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 [ Ref: (i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh versus Punjab Laminates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
