2024-VIL-1030-CESTAT-CHD-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise – Manufacture – Benefit of Area-Based Exemption Notification No. 50/2003 - Appellant is engaged in the re-packing of soaps under a contract with M/s HUL and paid service tax under the belief that their activities did not amount to manufacture – Demand of Excise Duty arguing that the re-packing activity amounted to manufacture, and the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003 was inapplicable due to the non-filing of a declaration - Whether the re-packing activity undertaken by the appellant under a contract amounted to manufacture, requiring payment of Central Excise Duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD - in a similar case involving the appellant the Tribunal held that the re-packing activity did not amount to manufacture and the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 50/2003, despite the non-filing of a declaration - the bona fide belief held by the appellant that their activities did not constitute manufacture was reasonable - the demand for Central Excise Duty is set aside holding that the activity did not amount to manufacture, and the appellant was entitled to the exemption - the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003 could not be denied for procedural reasons, such as the non-filing of a separate declaration by the job worker when the principal manufacturer had already filed one - the procedural lapses should not hinder the substantive right to an exemption, especially when the appellant acted under a bona fide belief - the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page