2009 (2) TMI 539 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. dated 28-5-1995 regarding supply of goods from different units of the same manufacturer for a specific project funded by the Asian Development Bank.

Summary:

Issue 1: Compliance with Notification No. 108/95-C.E. dated 28-5-1995
- The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Optical Fibres, Telecommunication Cables, and Power Transmission Conductors, was awarded a contract for supply of Aluminium Alloy Conductors for a project funded by the Asian Development Bank, exempted under the said Notification.
- Dispute arose as the goods were required to be supplied 50% each from Silvassa and Karanjware units, but the appellant supplied the entire order from Silvassa unit.
- Proceedings initiated for demand confirmation and penalty imposition based on the excess supply from Silvassa unit.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Notification requirements
- Appellant clarified that the original certificate specified 50% supply from each unit, but the order was later amended for 100% supply from Silvassa unit.
- Commissioner rejected appellant's submission, stating that separate units should avail benefits separately, even though they belong to the same manufacturer.
- Tribunal found that the Notification grants exemption to the manufacturer, not individual units, and as both units belong to the same appellant, the certificate for one unit suffices.
- Since Karanjware unit did not clear any goods, and the order was amended for 100% supply from Silvassa unit, the Tribunal held that benefits of the Notification extend to the appellant.
- Impugned order set aside, and appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

This judgment clarifies that under Notification No. 108/95-C.E., benefits extend to the manufacturer as a whole, not individual units, when fulfilling project supply requirements.