9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (UPC) on 18.06.2009 and the date of exercise of the option under this notification was mentioned as 20.06.2009 in the declaration filed by them. The appellant filed subsequent declaration because they had sought opinion from their consultant who had advised that this declaration needs to be filed for every financial year because notification provides for availing of exemption for each year and hence fresh declaration was again filed on 22.03.2010, thereafter, a show cause notice dated 22.07.2010 was issued to the appellant proposing to disallow the benefit of exemption under the said exemption notification and after following the due process the original authority denied the exemption on the ground that the appellant had filed the declaration for availing the exemption on 22.03.2010 whereas exemption was claimed with effect from 20.06.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the law as the same has been passed without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant in fact had been given the benefit of exemption after 23.03.2010 i.e. after the date of physical receipt of the new declaration for the financial year 2010-11. He further submitted that the issue as to whether the benefit of exemption can be denied had come up before the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Standard Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur-I reported as 2005 (192) E.L.T. 264 (Tri.-Kolkata) and Grasim industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore reported as 2004 (164) E.L.T. 348 (Tri.-Delhi). 8. He further submitted that even though the said decisions are in the context of modvat credit but the analogy is to the same and the exemption cannot be denied for mere late filing of declaration. He further submitted that similar issues had come up before the Hon'ble Tribunal in the context of the identical notification for unit located at Himachal Pradesh and it has been held that the benefit of the exemption cannot be denied for procedural lapse if any. He cited the following decisions : (i) Controls and Switchgears Company Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Meerut and Vice Versus in Appeal No.E/2043/2007-EX(DB) & E/2349/2007-EX(DB) de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on No. 50/2003-CE is mandatory and the benefit of Notification will be given only from the date of filing of declaration as prescribed under the said notification. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Maha Lakshmi Packages Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I 2015 (329) ELT 823 (Tri-Del.) 12. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the only issue in the present appeal relates to denial of exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 for the period of 20.06.2009 to 21.03.2010. We find that the department has denied the exemption to the appellant only on the ground that he has not filed the declaration for availing the exemption prior to 20.06.2009 whereas the case of the appellant is that they had sent the declaration through UPC on 18.06.2009 and copy of the same was sent along with reply to the show cause notice but the department did not take cognizance of the same. 13. We also find that the appellant vide his letter dated 25.08.2012 informed the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh that if the department has got any doubt regarding the genuineness of the declaration then the same can be verifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is entitled to that emption or concession. A provision providing for an exemption, concession or exception, as the case may be, has be construed strictly with certain exceptions depending upon the settings on which the provision has to be placed in the Statute and the object and purpose to be achieved. If exemption is available on complying with certain conditions, the conditions have to be complied with. The mandatory requirements of those conditions must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, though at times, some latitude can be shown, if there is a failure to comply with some requirements which are directory in nature, the non-compliance of which would not affect the essence or substance of the notification granting exemption. In Novapan Indian Ltd (supra), this Court held that a person, invoking an exception or exemption provisions, to relieve him of tax flability must establish clearly that he is covered by the said provisions and, in case of doubt or ambiguity, the benefit of it must go to the State. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave (1996) 2 SCR 253, held that such a notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwise it would defeat the object of area based exemption. This judgment of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2018 (13) G.S.T.L. J33 (S.C.). Further in the case of Indica Industries Pvt ltd the Tribunal has held as under in para 5 & 6: "5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. We note that the original authority recorded (Para 6 12 of impugned order) that it is not the case of the department that the party was located in a non-notified khasra or manufacturing product in the negative list or that they have not commenced the production before the cut of date of 31-3-2010 These are admitted facts. The only reason for denial of the exemption to the appellant is that they have not filed the declaration as stipulated in the notification for avalling such exemption. The original uthority held that though Notification No. 50/2003.C.E. did not contain such condition initially the same was inserted vide Notification No. 78/2003-C. E, dated 5-11-2003. The original authority held that the condition of filing declaration with details is mandatory and in the absence of that the exemption shall not be available. 6. We have perused the cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
