1. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the benefit of SSI exemption notification has been denied to the appellant for not filing of prescribed declarations.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Friction Drop Hammers, Power Presses etc. On scrutiny of ER-3 returns for the quarter December 2003 to March 2004, it was revealed that the appellant has assessed their Central Excise duty at the normal rate of 16%, after availing benefit of SSI Notification No. 9/2003-CE : dated 01.03.2003. As per the said notification, the exemption is subject to certain conditions, which includes exercising option in writing to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner with copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise giving certain details. The appellant has not produced any evidence regarding filing of such option. Therefore, it was alleged that appellant is not eligible to avail benefit of said notification as they have not complied with the conditions. In that circumstances, show cause notice was issued to demand differential duty along with interest and to impose penalty on the appellant. The matter was adjudicated, duty was demanded along with interest and penalty was imposed. On appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), ld. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demands. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us.
3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that mere non-filing of declarations by the appellant cannot be fatal for the appellant to deny exemption under the notification in question. It is his submission that the appellant has been filing ER-3 returns regularly and it has been shown that they are availing the benefit of notification by paying duty on concessional rates. In that circumstances, it is clear that the appellant has shown their intention for availing the benefit of exemption notification. He relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Lucknow v. Kanodia Polychem (P) Limited : 2016 (341) ELT 429 (Tri. All.). He further submits that, for the subsequent period, the benefit of notification has been allowed to the appellant relying on their ER-3 returns. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CC (Prv.), Amritsar v. Malwa Industries Limited : 2009 (235) ELT 214 (S.C.) to say that exemption notification should be read literally and the same is to be construed liberally if it is found that notification is applicable to the assessee.
4. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of notification in question as they have not fulfilled the condition of the said notification. He relied on the decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Saboo Cylinders (P) Limited : 2005 (180) ELT 40 (Tri. Del.). He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Limited v. Commissioner : 2004 (171) ELT 296 (SC).
5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. The short issue involved in the matter is that, in case the appellant has not filed declaration as required under Notification No. 9/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, whether the appellant is entitled for the benefit of exemption notification or not. In this case, we find that the appellant has been filing ER-3 returns regularly and claiming benefit of exemption notification. The ld. AR has relied on the decision in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Limited (supra) to submit that the condition of notification is to be complied strictly for availing the benefit. This decision is followed by this Tribunal in the case of Saboo Cylinders (P) Limited (supra). Countering the argument, ld. Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in the case of Malwa Industries Limited (supra) and submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering the decision in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Limited (supra), observed as follows:-
"10. An exemption notification should be read literally. A person claiming benefit of an exemption notification must show that he satisfies the eligibility criteria. Once, however, it is found that the exemption notification is applicable to the case of the assessee, the same should be construed liberally.
12. A notification like any other provision of a statute must be construed having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to achieve. For the aforementioned purpose, the statutory scheme in terms whereof such a notification has been issued should also be taken into consideration.
20. We, as noticed hereinbefore, have no quarrel with the proposition that exemption notification should be construed strictly which means that benefit thereof should not be granted to one, who is not entitled therefore. But it is also true that those who are entitled to the benefit cannot be deprived therefrom by taking recourse to the doctrine of narrow interpretation simplicitor, although the purpose and object thereof would be defeated thereby."
In Kartar Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise. New Delhi: [2006 (197) E.L.T. 151 : (2006) 4 SCC 772], this Court held:
"...It is trite to say that exemption notification has to be construed strictly. Since the notification came into effect from 11-4-1994, the benefit of the notification cannot be extended to the appellants retrospectively w.e.f. 1-3-1994."
In Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune : [2004 (171) E.L.T. 296 : (2004) 7 SCC 377], this Court held:
"6. We find that Notification No. 11/88 deals with exemption from operation of Rule 174 to exempted goods. The notification has been issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 174-A of the Rules. Inter alia, it is stated therein that, where the goods are chargeable to nil rate of duty or exempted from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon, the goods are exempted from the operation of Rule 174 of the Rules. The goods are specified in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short the Tariff Act). The proviso makes it clear that where goods are chargeable to nil rate of duty or where the exemption from the whole of the duty of excise leviable is granted on any of the six categories enumerated, the manufacturer is required to make a declaration and give an undertaking, as specified in the form annexed while claiming exemption for the first time under this notification and thereafter before the 15th day of April of each financial year. As found by the forums below, including CEGAT, factually, the declaration and the undertaking were not submitted by the appellants. This is not an empty formality. It is the foundation for availing the benefits under the notification. It cannot be said that they are mere procedural requirements, with no consequences attached for non-observance. The consequences are denial of benefits under the notification. For availing benefits under an exemption notification, the conditions have to be strictly complied with. Therefore, CEGAT endorsed the view that the exemption from operation of Rule 174, was not available to the appellants. On the facts found, the view is on terra firma...."
In Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise : (1989) 4 SCC 541], Ranganathan, J., despite accepting the proposition that the exemption notification should be construed strictly, opined:
"These words may be construed literally but should be given their fullest amplitude and interpreted in the context of the process of soap manufacture. There are no words in the notification to restrict it only to cases where rice bran oil is directly used in the factory claiming exemption and to exclude cases where soap is made by using rice bran fatty acid derived from rice bran oil. The whole purpose and object of the notification is to encourage the utilisation of rice bran oil in the process of manufacture of soap in preference to various other kinds of oil (mainly edible oils) used in such manufacture and this should not be defeated by an unduly narrow interpretation of the language of the notification even when it is clear that rice bran oil can be used for manufacture of soap only after its conversion into fatty acid or hydrogenated oil."
From the above, it can be seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the assessee cannot be deprived of the benefits by taking recourse to the doctrine of narrow interpretation simplicitor, thereby the purpose and object thereof would be defeated. We further find that in the similar facts, in the case of Kanodia Polychem (P) Limited (supra), this Tribunal has held as under:-
4. Having considered the rival contentions and in view of the uncontroverted fact that the appellant have availed exemption on the clearance of the un-branded goods and have paid full rate of duty on clearance of branded goods, we hold that the appellant have not violated the provisions of Notification No. 9/2003-C.E, dated 1-3-2003. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is entitled to exemption benefit under the provisions of Notification No. 9/2003-C.E. , dated 1-3-2003. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. The respondent assessee will be entitled to consequential benefit, if any.
6. As the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malwa Industries Limited (supra) held that exemption notification should be read liberally and it should be construed having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to achieve for issuance of such notification has also be considered. Admittedly, in this case, while filing ER-3 returns, the appellant has shown that they are paying duty at concessional rates by availing benefit of notification in question. In that circumstances, merely non-filing of declarations will not be fatal for the appellant to deny exemption of notification. In that circumstances, we hold that appellant is entitled to the benefit of exemption notification. Consequently, demand of duty is not sustainable and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Order pronounced in the court on _______________)
Devender Singh, Member (T)
7. Having gone through the order of Ld. Brother Hon'ble Member (Judicial), I record a separate order.
8. It is undisputed that the appellant did not file the prescribed option/declaration before first clearances. In fact, they have failed to file the option/declaration at all. The main contention of the appellant is that the same can be waived and the benefit of notification be allowed on the basis of their ER-3 returns.
9. As per Para-2 of the Notification No. 09/03-CE dt. 01.03.2003, the exemption in the notification is subject to certain conditions which include exercising of option in writing to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner with copy to Superintendent of Central Excise giving certain details. It is also mandated that the said option shall be exercised before effecting first clearance and the same shall not be withdrawn for the remaining part of the financial year. The declaration requires that following information is provided:-
"(a) name and address of the manufacturer;
(b) location/locations of factory/factories;
(c) description of inputs used in manufacture of specified goods;
(d) description of specified goods produced;
(e) date from which option under this notification has been exercised;
(f) aggregate value of clearances of specified goods (excluding the value of clearances referred to in para 3 of this notification) till the date of exercising the option;"
10. In this context, it would be pertinent to refer to the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and others : 2010 (260) ELT 3 (SC), wherein the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the matter of exemption under Notification No. 121/94-CE and also the pre-conditions for entitlement to avail such exemption. While deciding the said matter, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Tribunal has committed an error in overlooking the object and purpose of the procedure laid down in Chapter X. It was also held that detailed procedures have been laid down in Chapter X so as to curb the diversion and misutilisation of goods which are excisable. Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the scope and ambit of Chapter X and while laying down the aforesaid conclusions also laid down certain guidelines. In the said case, the court has clearly held that the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal was wrong and illegal. In this context, para 34 of the judgment is pertinent and is reproduced below-
"34. We find it difficult to sustain the reasoning of the Tribunal that the procedure laid down in Chapter X, is meant only to establish the receipt of goods by the recipient unit and their utilization. The Tribunal completely overlooked the object and purpose of the procedure laid down in Chapter X. The goods manufactured at the supplier end were excisable goods and if a party wants remission of duty, he has to follow certain pre-requisites, the object of which is to see that the goods be not diverted or utilized for some other purpose, on the guise of the exemption notification. Detailed procedures have been laid down in Chapter X so as to curb the diversion and misutilization of goods which are otherwise excisable. The plea of substantial compliance and intended use is, therefore, rejected for the reasons already stated."
11. Following the above principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is important to examine the intent and purpose of option and the information to be provided. A plain reading of clause 2 (i) and clause 2 (ii) of the notification shows that they are clearly related to the subsequent condition mentioned at sub clause (iii) of the notification which is detailed and elaborated with two illustrations. It would be obvious that the object of the option and information required before the first clearances are meant to ensure proper accountal of aggregate clearances not only from the same factory but while calculating aggregate clearances from more than one factory of the manufacturer. Clearly, the condition is built in with policy objective of preventing present misuse of the said exemption notification. The condition is therefore not merely technical and procedural, but is mandatory and substantive. The mandatory nature is also evident from that fact that the word shall is used at five places in clause 2(i) and 2(ii).
12. I also find that an identical issue in respect of notification No. 09/2003-CE has been fully analyzed by this Tribunal in its judgment in the case of Surat Metallics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE & ST, Surat : 2016 (343) ELT 1099 (Tri. Ahmd.) in which it was held as below:-
"6. A plain reading of the said notification, particularly the condition in clause 2, it is clear that the assessee-manufacturer requires to exercise their option to avail exemption under this notification, i.e., to pay duty at 60% of the normal rate of duty at the beginning of the financial year itself and the option once exercised, cannot be changed in the same financial year. Needless to emphasize that the condition to exercise the option is the basis for availing the benefit of the exemption notification, and therefore, ought to be complied with so as to be eligible for the benefit of the said notification. The condition 2 is mandatory one is further clear from a reading of sub-clause (iii) along with the illustrations enumerated thereunder. Therefore, the said condition 2 cannot be designated as a mere procedural one and to avail the benefit of the notification need not be fulfilled. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd.'s case (supra), while considering the eligibility to the Notification No. 10/2002-C.E, dated 1-3-2002, observed as follows:-
4. We find that the Tribunal has decided the case in favour of the assessee by observing that clearing of goods with payment of Excise duty with current account was only an error and the assessee had not violated the more substantial condition viz. no Cenvat credit should be taken in regard to the goods. This is clearly a faulty approach on the part of the Tribunal. It is stated at the cost of repetition that the assessee was required to fulfil the condition in stricto senso viz. to pay the duty either in cash or through account current if it wanted to avail the benefit of exemption notification and not through adjustment of Cenvat credit which is not the mode prescribed in the aforesaid conditions. Once we find that the conditions have not been fulfilled the obvious consequence would be that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of this notification.
7. Therefore, in view of the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case and in Hari Chand Shri Gopal's case (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in our opinion, non-fulfilment of the said mandatory condition would disentitle the appellant in availing the benefit of the SSI exemption Notification No. 9/2003-C.E, dated 1-3-2003. However, we find that the appellants had recorded all facts in their statutory records and the demand has been issued for the normal period. Thus, in our view, imposition of penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh in the circumstances of the case, appears to be too harsh. It would be appropriate and meet the ends of justice, if the appellants are directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousands only) instead of Rs. 1.00 lakh, as held by the authorities below. In the result, the impugned order is modified to the extent of imposition of penalty and the appeal is allowed partly to the extent of reduction of penalty. The appeal is disposed of as above."
13. The plea that they are filing ER-3 returns and the same could accepted in lieu of their not filing the option declaration before first clearance. Apart from the fact that the filling of option/declaration is a substantive mandatory condition as brought out above, the purpose, timing and frequency of ER-3 returns and the option/declaration in the notification are completely different. As per the Notification, the option is mandated to be filed before the first clearance and also it cannot be changed before the end of the financial year while ER-3 returns is a quarterly returns giving the details of inputs, raw materials and Cenvat Credit etc. Hence, substituting ER-3 returns for the option/declaration does not in any way meet the purpose and intent of the mandatory and substantive requirements of clause 2(i) and 2(ii) of the notification.
14. Following the above judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and others (Supra) and the Tribunal judgment in the case of Surat Metallics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE & ST, Surat (supra), I find that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and accordingly the same is dismissed.
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION
As there are divergent views of the Members, therefore, the matter is referred to the Hon'ble President to appoint third Member to resolve the following points of difference of opinion:-Whether the Member (Judicial) is correct in relying on the decisions in the case of Malwa Industries Limited (supra) and Kanodia Polychem (P) Limited (supra) to hold that appellant is entitled for the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 9/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 or the Member (Technical) is correct in holding that the appellant is not entitled to avail the benefit of Notification No. 9/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 relying on the decision in the case of Hari Chand Shri Gopal and others (supra) and Surat Metallics Pvt. Limited (supra).
(Points of difference pronounced in the court on 25.07.2017)
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
15. The following difference of opinion stands referred to me as Third Member:
"Whether the Member (Judicial) is correct in relying on the decisions in the case of Malwa Industries (supra) and Kanodia Polychem (P) Limited (supra) to hold that appellant is entitled for the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 9/2003-CE or the Member (Technical) is correct in holding that the appellant is not entitled to avail the benefit of Notification No. 9/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 relying on the decision in the case of Hari Chand Gopal and others (supra and Surat Metallics Pvt. Ltd. (supra)."
16. After hearing both sides, I find that the reason for dispute and the factual position stands recorded by the Member (Judicial) and the same are not being repeated so as to avoid repetition. Short issue required to be decided is as to whether the benefit of small scale Notification No. 9/03-CE dated 01.03.2003 would be available to the appellant in the absence of the declaration filed by the assessee opting for the claim of the notification. The said notification provides small scale exemption benefit with nil rate of duty or concessional rate of duty to the goods manufactured by a SSI. Admittedly, the appellant is an small scale industry and is otherwise entitled to the benefit of notification. In terms of SI. No. 2 of the notification, a manufacturer intended to avail the benefit of notification is required to file his option in writing to their jurisdictional Central Excise authority. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions of notification are reproduced below:
"2. The exemption contained in this notification shall apply subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(i) a manufacturer who intends to avail the exemption under this notification shall exercise his option in writing for availing the exemption under this notification before effecting the first clearances and such option shall be effective from the date of exercise of the option and shall not be withdrawn during the remaining part of the financial year;
(ii) while exercising the option under condition (i), the manufacturer shall inform in writing to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise giving the following particulars, namely:-
(a) name and address of the manufacturer;
(b) location/locations of factory/factories;
(c) description of inputs used in manufacture of specified goods;
(d) description of specified goods produced;
(e) date from which option under this notification has been exercised;
(f) aggregate value of clearances of specified goods (excluding the value of clearances referred to in para 3 of this notification) till the date of exercising the option;
17. As the appellant had admittedly not filed the said option in writing, Learned Member (Technical) held that the benefit would not be available to them whereas Learned Member (Judicial) observed that the said filing of option is a procedural requirement and non observance of the same would not result in denial of the substantive benefit to the assessee, if otherwise available.
18. The declaration requires an assessee to give various information's about them to their jurisdictional Central Excise authority. Such information is regarding name and address of the manufacturer, location of the factory, description of inputs and final products, the date from which option has been exercised and aggregate value of clearances. The question which arises is that if the information, which according to the Revenue is required to be provided in the separate declaration, is otherwise available to the Revenue, whether non-filing of declaration would result in denial of the benefits to the assessee.
19. The entire idea of the above notification is that the jurisdictional Central Excise officer is put to notice as regards the presence of manufacturer by mentioning the requisite information in the declaration. Such information was, in any case, available to the Revenue as the appellant was regularly filing ER-3 returns showing the fact of availing the benefit of the notification. When the ER-3 returns clearly reflected upon the fact of availment of notification, filing of option on a separate piece of paper, as insisted by the Revenue, in my views, cannot result in denial of the benefit of the notification to the assessee. As all the facts were available to the Revenue otherwise in the shape of ER-3 returns, the Revenue's insistence on filing of declaration cannot be appreciated. It is not understood as to why the option, which stands exercised by the appellant and stands brought to the knowledge of the Revenue by way of ER-3 returns, cannot be accepted as a declaration.
20. It is also seen that legislative intent in issuing the said notification is to grant concessional rate of duty to the SSI unit. The appellant had admittedly satisfied all substantial conditions of the notification so as to earn the benefit. Denial of benefit on the ground that the option was not filed separately, if the same is otherwise available to the assessee, would defeat the legislative intent. It is well settled that an interpretation which defeats the purpose, for which a particular notification stands issued by Government, is not required to be adopted. The Supreme Court in the case of Malwa Industries Ltd : 2009 (235) ELT 214 (SC) referred by the Learned Member (Judicial) observed that once it is found that notification is applicable to the assessee, the same has to be construed liberally having regard to the purposes and objects it seeks to achieve. Admittedly, in the present case, the purpose of small scale notification is to grant benefit to the SSI and to encourage the small scale industries. Such purpose cannot be defeated on the ground that option was not made separately on a piece of paper but the same was conveyed to the Revenue in the form of ER-3 returns.
21. Reliance by learned Member (Technical) in the case of Hari Chan Shri Gopal : 2010 (260) ELT 3 (SC) is not directly on the issue, inasmuch as the disputed issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was non following the procedure laid down in the terms of Chapter X. It may be observed here that the said Chapter X lays down a procedure for movement of inputs/raw material/goods to the factory of another manufacturer, without payment of duty, in which case the exemption is available to the said goods, if they are further used by the recipient. An elaborate procedure is required to establish, beyond doubt, that the goods manufactured and cleared by an assessee stands reached in the factory of the recipient and stands further used by the recipient in the manufacturer of their product. It was in such scenario, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that procedure prescribed under Chapter X is required to be followed strictly so as to ensure the intended use of the goods. The ratio of the above decision cannot be adopted and applied in the present case, where the assessee has not filed declaration intending to avail benefit of SSI notification especially when such intention and option stands intimated to the Revenue in the form of ER-3 returns. For the same reason, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Surat Metallics Pvt. Ltd : 2016 (343) ELT 1099 (Tri.-Ahmd) cannot be followed inasmuch as the same has simpliciter relied upon the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Chand Shri Gopal.
22. On the other hand, I find that the appellant have admittedly fulfilled the eligibility criteria of the notification in which case, the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malwa Industries Ltd. would apply. Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that there should be no quarrel with the proposition that exemption notification should be construed strictly which means that benefit should not be granted to one, who is not entitled but it is also true that who are entitled to the benefit cannot be deprived by taking recourse to the doctrine of narrow interpretation simplicitor, although the purpose and object thereof would be defeated thereby. Reliance by the learned Member (Judicial) upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kanodia Polychem (P) Ltd. dealing with SSI notification is appropriate.
23. It may not be out of place here to observe that for claiming the benefit of any notification which is subject to fulfilment of conditions enumerated therein, such conditions are required to be fulfilled by the assessee. However, there can be different kinds of conditions, specified under
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
particular enactment. Whereas some conditions are substantial conditions, upon which extending of that benefit is available, there can be procedural requirement. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sambhaji v. Gangabai : 2009 (240) ELT 161 (SC) discussed the issue of substantial condition vis-à-vis procedural conditions at length. It stands observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that procedural law should not be construed as mandatory, the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. All the rules of procedure are the handmaids of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of procedural law, may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. Similarly, in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd : 1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC) it was held that distinction has to be made between procedural condition of a technical nature and a substantive condition and non observance of the former is condonable while that of the latter may not be. 24. If we examine the condition of filing declaration in view of above observations and declarations of law by the Supreme Court, it has to be held that the benefit of notification in question is based upon the fulfilment of other conditions, like assessee being a small scale manufacture, the quantum of clearances effected in a particular year and the use of brand name etc. Filing of declaration has to be held as procedural conditions. Some conditions are substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy and some other merely belong to the area of procedure. It will be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes, which they were intended to serve. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. M/s. Wood Papers Ltd : 1991 JT (1) 151 at 155,] that when the question is as to whether a subject falls in the notification or in the exemption clause then it being in nature of exception is to be construed strictly and against the subject but once ambiguity or double about applicability is lifted and the subject falls in the notification then full play should be given to it and it calls for a wider and liberal construction In the absence of any other dispute about the fact that but for non filing of declaration/option, the assessee other wise falls within exemption notification, a liberal interpretation is required to be given and non following the procedural condition of filing separate declaration cannot be held as making the appellant disentitle to the benefit of the notification. 25. In view of foregoing discussion, I agree with the findings arrived by the learned Member (Judicial) for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The appeal papers are sent back to the original bench for recording majority decision. (Dictated& pronounced in the open court) MAJORITY ORDER 26. In view of the majority order, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by setting aside the impugned order.