ORDER
Per Archana Wadhwa
1. The Revenue being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had filed the present appeal.
2. We have heard the learned SDR Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, for the Revenue and Shri K.K. Bhattacharjee, learned Consultant for the respondent.
3. The dispute in the present case is as regards the availability of Notification No.33/99 dated 8.7.99 to the respondents. The revenue’s contention is that inasmuch as the respondents have not fulfilled the condition no 2(a) of the Notification in question, which requires them to submit a statement of the duty paid from account current to the Asst. Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, by the 7th of the next month in which the duty has been paid from account current the benefit cannot be enterded to them. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed in her impugned order that all the other conditions as regards the eligibility of the respondents to claim the benefit of Notification are fulfilled and the said conditions as contained in 2(a) of the Notification being only procedural condition, the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied to the respondents.
4. After giving our careful consideration to the issue involved we find that there is no dispute as regards the eligibility of the respondents to the benefit of the Notification in question. The Revenue’s only objection is that the statement showing payment of duty from the account current has been filed by the respondents to the proper officer by the 7th of the next month. It is well settled law that non-following of procedural requirement cannot deny the substantive benefit, otherwise available to the assessee. It is on record that the factum of payment of duty was being reflected by the appellants in RT-12 returns filed by them with the Department and as such in any case was before the Revenue. The only lapse on the part of the assessee is that the separate statement of such duty paid was not made by them and separately submitted to the proper officer. In our view such lapse on their part is not sufficient to deny them the benefit otherwise available to the Notification. Accordingly, no merits are found in the Revenue’s appeal. The same is rejected.
(Dictated & pronounced in Court)