TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt filed declaration on 23.03.2010 under the belief that every year declaration is required to be filed. This issue of non filing/late filing of declaration to avail exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 has come up before this Tribunal in the case of Controls and Switchgears company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central excise Meerut and Vice-versa [ 2017 (4) TMI 847 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein also the exemption was denied to the assessee on the ground that assessee did not file the option for claiming benefit of exemption notification. It was held by the Tribunal that intimation to the department about the option for claiming benefit of exemption appears to be only a procedural requirement, and a liberal attitude, therefore as to be taken in this regard when the assessee otherwise is entitled to the benefit of exemption notification with effect from the date when the department was informed by the assessee on their claim of benefit of the notification. Further, in the case of Vasantham Enterprises Vs. Commissioenr of C. Ex. Chandigarh [ 2014 (12) TMI 953 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] it was held by the Tribunal that it is a settled law that though exemption notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 properly appreciating the facts of the case and the law. He further submits that they had sent the declaration through Under Postal Certificate (UPC) on 18.06.2009 copy of which was enclosed with the reply to the show cause notice but the cognizance of the same has not been taken on the grounds that the said declaration could not have been sent through UPC because it was a very important declaration. He further submits that the authorities below mentioned that the appellant had again filed declaration on 22.03.2009 physically and hence it is to be deemed that the earlier declaration was not filed. 5. He further submitted that though the appellant filed the subsequent declaration also under the impression that declaration is required to be filed every year. He further submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p 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) decided on 13.04.2017 reported as 2017-TIOL-1960-CESTAT-DEL (ii) Vasantham Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported as 2015 (37) S.T.R. 1007 (Tri. Del.) which has been upheld by the Supreme Court reported as Commissioner v. Vasantham Enterprises 2018 (13) G.S.T.L. J33 (S.C.) (iii) Usha Infrasystems Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II Versus reported as 2019 (369) E.L.T. 1258 (Tri. Chan.) (iv) Indica Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex. S.T., Dehradun reported as 2017 (257) E.L.T. 961 (Tri. Del) and upheld by the Supreme Court in the Commissioner Versus Indica Industries Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (360) E.L.T. A124 (S.C.) 9. He further submitted that similar issue as to whether the declaration under Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat 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 verified from the relevant post office and the complete address of the post office was also supplied to the officer. But the department did not make any effort to verify the same and simply ignored the request of the appellant and has denied the exemption for the relevant period only on the ground of non receipt of declaration. Further, we find that subsequently, the appellant filed declaration on 23.03.2010 under the belief that every year declaration is required to be filed. This issue of non filing/late filing of declaration to avail exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 has come up before this Tribunal in the case of Controls and Switchgears company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central excise Meerut and Vice-versa-2017-TIOL-1960-CESTAT-Del. Whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), 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 not on any other basis. This was so held in the context of the principle that in a taxing statue, there is no room for any intendment, that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification, ie, by the plain terms of the exemption. 23. Of course, some of the provisions of an exemption notification may be directory in nature and some are of mandatory in nature. A distinction between provisions of statue which are of substantive character and were built in with certain specific objection[ns of policy, on the one hand, and those which are merely procedural and technical in their nature, on the other, must be kept clearly distinguished. in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclaration 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 condition as reproduced above. The details as required to be filed in the option were all available in the letter dated 15-3-2010 seen in the appeal records. The said letter was in connection with registration of the Unit No. III under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The registration as sought for has been given by the department on 19-3-2010. However, we note that the appellant indicated in the said Notification No 76/2008-C.E., dated 24-3-2008 with reference to already existing unit (Unit-II) apparently no reference to Exemption No. 50/2003 was made when new registration was sought for Unit No. III. However, the monthly ERI return which is a statutory return giving various details of excisable goods manufactured and cleared and the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
