2017 (1) TMI 1483 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-1995 as amended - denial on the ground that the relevant certificates produced under N/N. 108/95, from the United Nations Children s Fund (UNICEF) has been issued in favour of M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. and not in favour of the appellant - case of appellant is that these goods were manufactured on job work basis and supplied to M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd., Pithampura, who in turn has supplied the same to UNICEF in terms of the notification issued. Held that - even though the certificate covers the goods cleared by the appellant, since it is issued in favour of M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd., there has to be documentary proof to effect that the goods in turn have been supplied by M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. for the said UNICEF project - ld. Counsel submits that he is in a position to provide such documentary evidence. The benefit of exemption notification as claimed will be allowable to the appellant provided, he furnishes documentary proof to the effect that the goods in question have been supplied for the UNICEF project either by the appellant or by M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. for supply to UN and international organizations for projects.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), Indore regarding the clearance of three Vehicles without duty payment under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing "Body of Motor Vehicles," claimed exemption for goods supplied to UN and international organizations. However, authorities held the appellant ineligible as the certificates were issued in favor of another company, M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd., not the appellant. The appellant argued the goods were manufactured on a job work basis for M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd., who supplied them to UNICEF.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel presented certificates issued by UNICEF covering the cleared goods. The counsel argued that since the certificates covered the goods and there was no dispute, the duty exemption should apply, citing relevant Tribunal decisions. The Departmental Representative reiterated the impugned order.

Upon reviewing the UNICEF certificates, it was noted that although they covered the cleared goods, they were issued in favor of M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. The appellant claimed to have supplied the goods to M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd., who then supplied them to UNICEF. The Tribunal found the need for documentary proof showing the goods were indeed supplied for the UNICEF project by either the appellant or M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. The appellant's counsel expressed readiness to provide such evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant could avail the exemption if documentary evidence was furnished proving the goods were supplied for the UNICEF project by either party. The issue was remanded to the Original Authority for further consideration, allowing the submission of evidence as per law.