2010 (7) TMI 406 - AT - Central Excise

Defence supplies Exemption extension to job workers/vendor supplying goods to M/s BEML for further supply to Ministry of Defence Exemption available if goods manufactured by units and supplied to Ministry of Defence goods not supplied directly Held that - Commissioner is not entitled to extend the scope of any Exemption Notification. Extending the benefit to the job workers and vendors who supplied the inputs to the manufacturer of finished goods who have to supply such goods to the Ministry of Defence no fault in order denying exemption

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 63/95-C.E.
2. Scope of remand by the Tribunal.
3. Applicability of Trade Notice No. 53/92 and letter dated 7-11-2003.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Exemption under Notification No. 63/95-C.E.:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing bearings, claimed exemption under Notification No. 63/95-C.E. for goods supplied to M/s. BEML, which were further supplied to the Ministry of Defence. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) denied this exemption, leading to the present appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption under Notification No. 63/95-C.E. is conditional. The goods must be manufactured by specified units and supplied to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes. The appellants' goods were supplied to M/s. BEML, not directly to the Ministry of Defence. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants' goods did not meet the conditions for exemption, as the Notification does not cover inputs supplied to manufacturers of goods meant for the Ministry of Defence.

2. Scope of Remand by the Tribunal:
The appellants argued that the remand by the Tribunal was limited to verifying documentary proof that the goods were supplied to the Ministry of Defence. However, the Tribunal clarified that its previous order set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, including a full reconsideration of evidence. Therefore, the adjudicating authority was within its rights to re-evaluate the entire matter and not just the documentary proof.

3. Applicability of Trade Notice No. 53/92 and Letter Dated 7-11-2003:
The appellants relied on Trade Notice No. 53/92 and a letter dated 7-11-2003 to support their claim for exemption. The Tribunal noted that the Trade Notice related to Notification No. 184/86, not Notification No. 63/95-C.E., and thus could not be applied. Moreover, the letter dated 7-11-2003 from the Commissioner lacked reference to any Board Circular or instructions from the Government of India, making it insufficient to extend the scope of the exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that Circulars and instructions must directly relate to the specific Notification for them to be binding.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellants' claim for exemption under Notification No. 63/95-C.E., confirming that the appellants did not meet the specified conditions. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities.