2013 (10) TMI 1382 - AT - Central Excise

Whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of N/N. 108/95-C.E. on a certificate which has been issued in the name of the contractor who was executing the project which has been financed by World Bank and Asian Development Bank? Held that - the appellant herein cannot be denied the benefit of notification since it is undisputed that the goods cleared by the appellant by availing the benefit of N/N. 108/95-C.E., were consumed in the project executed in earthquake affected area. It is seen that Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s. Caterpiller India Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (7) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , were considering the similar issue and held that the use of the phrase supplied to the projects financed by the said United Nations or an International Organisation and approved by the Government of India clearly shows that the condition for grant of exemption is supply of the goods towards the project and nothing beyond, the notification applicable and benefit allowed. The appellant herein is eligible for availing the benefit of N/N. 108/95-C.E. in respect of goods cleared by them for use in earthquake affected area - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E.
2. Requirement of the certificate being issued in the name of the manufacturer.
3. Adherence to the conditions of the exemption notification.
4. Legal precedents and their applicability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for the Benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E.:
The core issue was whether the appellant was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E., which exempts excisable goods supplied to projects financed by international organizations and approved by the Government of India. The appellant had cleared TMT bars under this notification for projects funded by the Asian Development Bank and World Bank.

2. Requirement of the Certificate Being Issued in the Name of the Manufacturer:
The exemption was contested because the Project Authority Certificates were issued in the name of the contractors, not the manufacturer (appellant). The adjudicating authority confirmed a duty of Rs. 17,90,592/- and imposed a penalty and interest, stating that the exemption was not applicable unless the certificate was issued in the name of the manufacturer.

3. Adherence to the Conditions of the Exemption Notification:
The appellant argued that they had produced the necessary certificates before clearing the goods, and these goods were indeed used for the intended projects. They cited several legal precedents supporting their case, emphasizing that the goods were used in the earthquake rehabilitation project, thus meeting the notification's intent.

4. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability:
The appellant referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in CCE, Pondichery v. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. and other Tribunal decisions that supported their claim. The Departmental Representative, however, cited the contrary decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Dee Development Engineers Ltd., which required strict adherence to the certificate naming requirements.

Judgment Analysis:

Factual Background:
It was undisputed that the appellant filed the necessary certificates and that the TMT bars were used in the funded projects. The primary legal question was whether the exemption could apply when the certificate was not in the manufacturer's name.

Legal Reasoning:
The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, which ruled that the exemption applied as long as the goods were used in the project, irrespective of whether they were supplied directly to the project implementing authority or through contractors. This judgment emphasized the public interest and the intent behind the notification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the appellant met the notification's conditions since the goods were used in the intended projects. They followed the later judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras over the earlier Punjab & Haryana High Court decision, as there was no conflicting jurisdictional High Court ruling. Consequently, the appellant was deemed eligible for the exemption, and the impugned order was set aside.

Final Order:
The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. The Tribunal pronounced this judgment in court on 22-10-2013.

← Previous Next →