2008 (11) TMI 552 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. for exemption eligibility based on machinery supplies to projects financed by international organizations.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. for machinery supplied to projects financed by international organizations. The Department contended that the machinery was not directly supplied to the United Nations or international organizations but to contractors executing the projects, thus not meeting the conditions of the notification. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and noted that projects, especially significant ones, require contractor assistance. The Tribunal observed that the notification allows for supplies directly to organizations for official use and to projects financed by those organizations. The Tribunal, prima facie, found that the supplies were made to projects financed by the Asian Development Bank, potentially making the appellant eligible for the exemption. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of dues and stayed the recovery pending appeal disposal.

The Department relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a related case, emphasizing the legal precedent. In contrast, the appellant's advocate referred to a previous Stay Order by the Tribunal on an identical issue for an earlier period, highlighting consistency in interpretation. The Tribunal acknowledged these references but ultimately based its decision on the specific circumstances of the case and the provisions of the notification. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the nature of the supplies in relation to the projects financed by international organizations, emphasizing the dual criteria of direct supplies to organizations and supplies to projects financed by them as outlined in the notification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the machinery supplies in question were made to projects financed by the Asian Development Bank, potentially meeting the conditions for exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. The decision to waive pre-deposit and stay recovery of dues until appeal disposal reflected the Tribunal's preliminary assessment of the case. The direction to tag the appeal with a related case further streamlined the adjudication process, ensuring coherence in handling similar matters. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting exemption notifications in line with the specific factual context of each case to determine eligibility accurately.