2013 (10) TMI 1091 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of Notification No. 108/95 - Revenue was of the view that the assesse did not submit the documentary evidence for availing the benefit of exemption notification Held that - As per the benefit of Notification no. 108/95, the project has to be proved by the Government of India and certificate from the specified officer is required in respect of the goods that the same are required for the execution of the said project - Both the authorities below held that applicant produced the necessary certificate that the goods in question are required for the project by the Government of India - only objection raised by the Revenue is that certificate was not in the name of present respondents - the certificate is to be in respect of the goods that the same are required for the project - the respondents has produced necessary certificate, which is accepted by the authorities below that goods in question are for the project approved by the Government of India there was no merit in the appeal Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding denial of benefit of Notification No. 108/95 for excisable goods clearance.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) related to the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 108/95 for the clearance of excisable goods. The respondents were engaged in manufacturing excisable goods during a specific period and availed the benefit of the said notification. A show cause notice was issued for denying this benefit due to the lack of submission of documentary evidence. However, the respondents provided the necessary documents before the adjudicating authority, who subsequently dropped the proceedings. The Revenue contended that the respondents did not fulfill the conditions of the notification as they did not produce the required certificate. The benefit of the notification mandated a certificate from a specified officer confirming that the goods were necessary for a government-approved project. Both lower authorities confirmed that the respondents had indeed produced the necessary certificate, indicating that the goods were required for the approved project. The only objection raised by the Revenue was that the certificate was not in the name of the present respondents. However, the Tribunal noted that the certificate needed to be in respect of the goods required for the project, not necessarily in the name of the respondents. As the necessary certificate was produced and accepted by the lower authorities, confirming that the goods were for the approved project by the Government of India, the appeal was found to lack merit and was subsequently dismissed.

This judgment highlights the importance of fulfilling the conditions specified in notifications for availing benefits, particularly in cases involving excisable goods clearance. It clarifies that the certificate required under the notification must confirm the necessity of the goods for the approved project by the Government of India, rather than being specifically in the name of the party involved. The decision underscores the significance of providing necessary documentation to support claims for exemptions or benefits under relevant notifications, emphasizing compliance with procedural requirements to avoid disputes and appeals.