High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 12 UK CK 0036

Shri Krsna Urja Project Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 17 December 2012 · Citation: (2013) 19 GSTR 16

HON’BLE JUDGES
Barin Ghosh, C.J · Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Central Excise Appeal No. 6 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 229 words

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Whether or not, the appellant was eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE, dated June 10, 2003, loses significance in the instant case. The question is, whether the appellant was entitled to the benefits under the said notification? In order to be entitled to the exemption thereunder, it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to exercise its option in writing before effecting the first clearance. Admittedly, the appellant did not do so. The question is, whether this requirement to be entitled, was or was not mandatory? If it was mandatory, then, according to the judgment of the hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and Others, etc. etc., , non-compliance will not entail benefits of the said notification. According to us, in order to be entitled to the benefits under the said notification, it was a mandatory requirement of the appellant to exercise its option in writing before effecting the first clearance, in order to enable the Departmental authorities to ascertain, whether, in fact, the appellant is eligible to the benefits under the said notification. That having not been done, we are of the view that there was nothing wrong on the part of the Department in not allowing the appellant the benefits of the said notification. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.