2016 (2) TMI 1041 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 108/95, dated 28-8-1995 - sutures cleared to the Government under the project funded by the World Bank - denial on the ground of non-production of the certificate before the clearance of the said goods and the certificate was not countersigned by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India - Held that - It is true that the benefit of notification becomes eligible only in the event of fulfilment of the conditions stipulated therein. As vision in the eyes is of paramount importance, than any other limbs to the human beings, bestowing sufficient concentration on this vital aspect should receive the utmost attention of the authorities by being liberal in passing benefits of such notifications. Any attempt to deny such benefits on technical grounds would contribute to the alarming growth in loss of vision, which no progressive society can afford. In the instant case, the said certificate had been signed by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India. There is understandably difference between an unsigned certificate and a certificate which was signed but not countersigned. Taking into the account the well settled principle that procedural infirmities such as the present one should not be allowed to the extent of denying the very benefit offered by the above said notification which is beneficial in nature, and only granting, rather than non-granting, will be in consonance with the legislative intent. The appellants are eligible for exemption N/N. 108/95, dated 28-8-1995 on sutures cleared to the Government under the project funded by the World Bank - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Notification No. 108/95 for duty exemption on goods supplied to a project financed by the World Bank.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a refund claim for duty exemption on sutures supplied to a project financed by the World Bank under Notification No. 108/95. Discrepancies noted included failure to inform the department of availing exemption, lack of required certificate, and non-furnishing of documents showing duty payment.

2. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim, stating the conditions of the notification were not fulfilled. An appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was also dismissed based on non-production of the certificate and lack of countersignature by a Joint Secretary.

3. The appellant argued entitlement to the exemption based on the bid conditions, duty payment post-amendment, and possession of a certificate from the Project Implementing Authority. They cited relevant case law and sought relief.

4. The Revenue opposed the appeal, referencing judgments and seeking rejection. The Tribunal noted the award of the contract by the Ministry and the project's nature. It highlighted the importance of the project for cataract blindness control.

5. The Tribunal found factual errors in the lower authorities' observations and emphasized the project's noble cause. It stressed the importance of not denying benefits on technical grounds, especially for essential welfare projects.

6. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from cited case laws, noting substantial compliance with the notification's requirements. It concluded that the appellant was eligible for the duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95 and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's reasoning, and the final decision granting relief to the appellant based on the fulfillment of essential conditions for duty exemption under the relevant notification.