SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2957

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B. P. Colabawalla, Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ
Commissioner of Central Ex and ST CGST and Central Excise Daman – Appellant
Versus
KEC International Ltd – Respondent
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.9 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Maya Majumdar, Niyati Mankad, Priyanka Singh
For the Respondents: Bharat Raichandani, Bhagrati Sahu

A finding by a tribunal that substantial compliance with procedural requirements is sufficient to grant exemption benefits, based on the specific facts of a case, does not constitute a substantial question of law.

Headnote:The matter pertains to the interpretation of exemption notifications and whether substantial compliance with their provisions is sufficient to grant benefits despite procedural lapses. The Revenue challenged an order of the CESTAT, contending that the failure to submit certificates from appropriate authorities constituted a breach of strict compliance requirements. The court examined whether the Tribunal erred in holding that substantial compliance was sufficient and whether the requirement for certificates was mandatory. The court observed that the Tribunal's conclusions were purely fact-based and derived from the peculiar facts of the case, specifically finding that substantial benefits should not be denied for a mere procedural lapse. The Appeal is therefore dismissed.

P. C.

1 The above Appeal has been filed by the Revenue contending that certain substantial questions of law arise from the impugned Order dated 7th June, 2024 passed by the CESTAT. Though, several questions have been raised in the Memo of Appeal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue pressed into service only questions (1) and (2), which read thus:-

“1:-Whether the CESTAT has erred in holding that there was a substantial compliance of the provisions of the exemptions notifications under reference and the substantial benefit could not be denied merely for procedural lapse?

2 Whether the CESTAT has failed to appreciate that the exemptions are subject to strict compliance and the Notifications in the instant case imposes a condition that Certificates from the Appropriate Authorities should be submitted by the assessee to the Department?.”

2 After going through the impugned Order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the conclusions reached by the Tribunal are purely fact based. It is after taking into consideration the facts of the present case that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there was substantial compliance of the provisions of the exemption notifications under reference and that substantial benefits could not be denied merely for a procedural lapse. The Tribunal has reached these conclusions for the reasons set out in paragraph 8 of the impugned Order.

3 Considering the peculiar facts of this case, the Tribunal allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant and granted the Appellant relief under the Notifications referred to in the impugned Order.

4 We find that no substantial question of law arises from the impugned Order as the same is passed in the peculiar facts of the present case. The Appeal is therefore dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

5 This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top