9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 749 - AT - Central ExciseDemand - Notification No. 10/1997-C.E., dated 1-3-1997 - Period of limitation - The benefit of Notification was denied on the ground that the goods in question are for use in the testing of missiles and the same gets consumed and the benefit of exemption is not meant for consumable of a weapon or armament. - Held that - goods in question are supplied to the DRDO and a requisite certificate was produced at the time of clearance to the effect that the goods for which exemption have been claimed are for research purposes - Goods are specified under notification - Decided in favor of the assessee.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of benefit of Notification No. 10/1997-C.E. for goods supplied to DRDO. 2. Denial of exemption on the ground that goods were for use in testing missiles. 3. Allegation of suppression and invocation of extension period of limitation. 4. Consideration of missiles as scientific and technical instruments for exemption under the Notification. Issue 1: Disallowance of benefit of Notification No. 10/1997-C.E. for goods supplied to DRDO The appellant contended that the goods supplied to DRDO, including computers, actuators, software, and connectors, were meant for research purposes and thus qualified for exemption under the Notification. The necessary certificate confirming the use of goods for research was produced and not disputed. The denial of exemption was based on the argument that the goods were used in testing missiles, which was deemed as non-qualifying consumption. However, the Notification specifically exempts scientific and technical instruments, including computers and software, used for research purposes. The Tribunal agreed that the denial of benefit on the ground of missile testing was not sustainable. Issue 2: Denial of exemption on the ground that goods were for use in testing missiles The Revenue argued that missiles cannot be considered as scientific and technical instruments, relying on the Adjudicating Authority's findings. However, the Tribunal noted that the goods were supplied to DRDO with a certificate confirming their use for research purposes. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods were specified under the Notification and required for research purposes as per the certificate issued by the competent authority. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 10/97-C.E., setting aside the Adjudicating Authority's finding on the nature of research conducted by DRDO. Issue 3: Allegation of suppression and invocation of extension period of limitation The appellant argued against the confirmation of demand based on the extension period of limitation, stating that they were clearing goods under the Notification and filing monthly returns. The appellant contended that the allegation of suppression was not sustainable due to compliance with filing procedures. The Tribunal did not delve into the issue of limitation, as it found in favor of the appellant on the substantive matter of exemption under the Notification. Issue 4: Consideration of missiles as scientific and technical instruments for exemption under the Notification The Notification exempts specified goods supplied to specified institutions for research purposes. The dispute centered on whether goods related to missile testing could be considered scientific and technical instruments for the purpose of exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods supplied to DRDO were certified for research purposes, and as per the Notification's conditions, they qualified for exemption. The Tribunal concluded that the goods' use in research, as certified by the recipient institution, warranted the benefit of the Notification, regardless of the specific research area, such as missile testing. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, regarding the disallowance of the benefit of Notification No. 10/1997-C.E. for goods supplied to DRDO and the interpretation of the Notification's conditions for exemption.
|
