2004 (1) TMI 561 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to validity of order-in-appeal granting benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E., requirement of certificate from Tuberculosis Research Centre (TRC) for goods supplied to WHO, interpretation of proviso (a) and proviso (b)(ii) of the notification.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Validity of Order-in-Appeal:
The Revenue challenged the validity of the order-in-appeal where the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the order-in-original and granted the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E., amended by Notification No. 40/99-C.E., to the respondents. The Revenue contended that the respondents failed to furnish a certificate from TRC as required by proviso (b)(ii) of the notification. However, the Tribunal held that the case of the respondents fell under proviso (a) of the notification, where no certificate from TRC was necessary since the goods were supplied to WHO, not TRC directly. The Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

2. Requirement of Certificate from Tuberculosis Research Centre (TRC):
The crux of the issue revolved around the necessity of a certificate from TRC for goods supplied by the respondents to WHO. The Revenue argued that proviso (b)(ii) of the notification mandated such a certificate, and since the respondents failed to provide it, they should not be granted the benefit of the notification. However, the Tribunal found that as the order for goods was placed by WHO and the goods were delivered to TRC at WHO's direction, the requirement of a certificate from TRC did not apply. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods were not supplied to TRC at the respondents' instance, and the certificate issued by the WHO confirming ownership of the goods further supported the respondents' position.

3. Interpretation of Proviso (a) and Proviso (b)(ii) of the Notification:
The Tribunal delved into the interpretation of proviso (a) and proviso (b)(ii) of the notification to determine the applicability of the certificate requirement from TRC. It clarified that proviso (a) covered situations where goods were supplied to WHO, exempting the need for a TRC certificate. In contrast, proviso (b)(ii) would have been relevant if the goods were directly supplied to TRC. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the distinction between the entities to which the goods were supplied and the role of the WHO in the transaction, ultimately concluding that the respondents were correctly granted the benefit of the notification under proviso (a).

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal, emphasizing that the respondents' case fell under proviso (a) of the notification, thereby negating the requirement for a certificate from TRC. The judgment highlighted the importance of the entity to which the goods were supplied and the circumstances under which the supply took place in determining the applicability of the notification provisions.