LexCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI versus M/S HARI CHAND SHRI GOPAL & OTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(201 OJ 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 820 A COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI B c V. MIS HARi CHAND SHRI GOPAL & OTHER (Civil Appeal Nos. 1878-1880 of 2004) NOVEMBER 18, 2010 [S.H. KAPADIA, C.J.I., 8. SUDERSHAN REDDY, K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Central Excise Rules, 1944: Chapter X - rr. 192, 174 - Assessee captively consuming specified intermediate goods (Kimam) for manufacture of final products (chewing tobacco) - Exemption D from remission of excise duty on specified intermediate goods (Kimam) as per Notification No. 121194-CE dated 11.8.1994 - Claimed on the ground of 'intended use' and 'substantial compliance' of the procedure set out in Chapter X on basis of the records at the recipient end - Held: At the E supplier end, no registration ulr. 17 4 obtained nor records were kept - Failure on the part of applicants, at the recipient end, to give various declarations in the statutory forms so as to claim exemption - Non-compliance of conditions enumerated under various rules in Chapter X and non- fumishing of various statutory forms prescribed under Chapter F X - Thus, plea of 'intended use' and 'substantial compliance' not established - Order passed by the tribunal set aside - Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Notification No. 121194-CE dated 11. 8.1994 - Doctrine of 'substantial compliance' and 'intended use'. G Chapter X - Manufacture and clandestine removal of pump parts and gun metal casting - Exemption from payment of excise duty and penalty as per Notification No. 312001-CE and 612001-CE - Grant of, by tribunal even though procedure H 820 COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE v. HARi CHAND 821 SHRI GOPAL set out in Chapter X not followed, holding that procedure laid A down in Chapter X is meant to be followed only to establish the receipt of goods by recipient unit and their utilization - Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - Tribunal completely overlooked the object and purpose of the procedure laid down in Chapter X - Goods manufactured at B the supplier's end were excisable goods and if a party wanted remission of duty, he was to follow certain pre-requisites - Object was to see that the goods should not be diverted or utilized for some other purpose, in the guise of the exemption Notification - Thus, plea of "substantial compliance" and c "intended use" is rejected - Order passed by the tribunal set aside - Notification No. 312001-CE and 612001-CE - Doctrine of 'substantial compliance' and 'intended use'. . Chapter X - Assessee manufacturing and clearing Printed Circuit Board - Exemption from payment of excise D duty as per Notification No. 48194-CE dated 1. 3. 1994 - Claim of - Held: Not permissible - Assessee did not follow the procedure set out in Chapter X - It failed to fulfill the mandatory requirements for claiming exemption from duty - Thus, order passed by the tribunal upheld - Central Excise E Tariff Act, 1985 - Notification No. 48194-CE dated 1.3.1994. Interpretation of statutes - Exemption clause - Construction of - Explained. Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of 'substantial compliance' and 'intended use' - Explained. F The assessees - respondents, in Civil Appeal Nos. 1878-1880, were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz.- preparation containing chewing tobacco G falling under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Excise Officers inspected the factories of the respondents and found that the addictive mixture (Kimam) manufactured at the factories at Delhi was H 822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A clandestinely removed for the manufacturing of chewing tobacco without applying/obtaining the certificate of registration as required under r. 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and without payment of excise duty. The respondents were issued notices imposing excise duty B and penalty. The respondents claimed exemption under Notification No. 121/94-CE dated 11.08.1994 and raised a plea of substantial compliance of the procedure in Chapter X of the Rules. The Adjudicating Authority held that the benefit of the exemption Notification would be c available only when the procedure laid down in Chapter X were complied with; and that the records produced did not ·substantiate a plea of substantial compliance of the procedure. The Authority upheld the imposition of the duty liability, interest and penalty. Aggrieved, the 0 respo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.