Procedural delays in filing statements required for claiming benefits under exemption notifications are considered procedural lapses and cannot be used to deny substantive benefits to an otherwise eligible assessee.

S. S. GARG :

The present seven appeals are directed against a common impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ludhiana, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the appeal of the department by setting aside the Order-in-Original dated 11.12.2015 vide which the Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the refund/self- credit claims of the Appellant under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002. Since the issue involved in all seven appeals is identical and there is a common impugned order, therefore, all appeals are being taken up together for discussion and decision.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant are engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under Chapter Heading 25232910 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant are availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 (as amended) under which specified goods produced by a manufacturer are eligible for exemption subject to the conditions and procedures contained therein. The Appellant started their commercial production with effect from 15.05.2006. The Appellant had availed self-credit facility as provided under Para No. 2C(a) of the Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 (as amended) and filed statement for August 2014 to February 2015 for determination of amount of refund to the Adjudicating Authority in terms of Para 2C(d) of the Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 (as amended), as detailed under:

[[IMG_1]]

On account of the said delay, the refund was sought to be denied but the Adjudicating Authority, vide Order-in-Original dated 11.12.2015, determined and sanctioned the amount as refundable to the Appellant by way of credit in terms of the Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 (as amended). Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) contending that delayed filing of statements violated mandatory conditions of the notification requiring strict compliance with exemption notifications. The Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal, has set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed appeal of the department. Being aggrieved by the said impugned Order-in-Appeal, the Appellant have filed the present appeals before us.

3. Heard both sides and perused the material on records.

4. The learned Consultant for the appellant submits that the impugned Order-in-Appeal, which set aside the Order-in-Original granting refund to the Appellant, is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and binding judicial precedents.

4.1 He further submits that as per the condition 2C(d) of the Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002, the manufacturer was required to submit a statement of the total duty payable as well as duty paid by utilization of the Cenvat Credit or otherwise and the credit taken as per Clause 5(a) to the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner by 15th day of the next month in which the credit has been so taken. He also submits that the only lapse alleged by the department is ‘delay in filing the statements for certain month’. He also submits that the said condition regarding submission of the statements within the prescribed time, is procedural in nature and cannot defeat the substantive benefit of the exemption notification.

4.2 He further submits that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and stands settled by this Tribunal in the numerous dec