2015 (1) TMI 987 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of exemption Notification No. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-1995 - while an exemption certificate has been produced, the same mentions the contractor s name as M/s. K. Rama Krishna, Plot No. 404, Veeru Castle, Durga Nagar Colony, Punjagutta, Hyderabad , while the goods as per the invoices issued by the respondent have been supplied to M/s. Nagar Engineering Co., Jaipur. Held that - There is no dispute that the goods supplied by the respondent were required for a project financed by the Asian Development Bank being implemented by the Government of Rajasthan. The certificate regarding requirement of the goods in question for this project has also been issued by the project implementing authority and the same is counter-signed by the designated officers of the State Government. The certificate mentions the description and the quantity of the goods required for the project and also the name of the contractor - M/s. K. Rama Krishna Contractor Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad , who has been engaged for implementation of the project. The only objection of the department is that invoices are not in the name of the contractor. We are of the view that when the invoices, though issued to M/s. Nagar Engineering Company as the buyer, show M/s. K. Rama Krishna Contractor as the consignee and there is no dispute that the goods though procured through M/s. Nagar Engineering Company had actually been received by M/s. K. Rama Krishna, the contractor, the benefit of the exemption under notification No. 108/95-C.E. cannot be denied. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. for goods supplied to a project financed by the Asian Development Bank through a contractor.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of duty exemption claimed by the respondent for supplying goods to a project financed by the Asian Development Bank through a contractor. The department contended that the exemption was wrongly claimed as the invoices did not match the contractor's name mentioned in the exemption certificate. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner disallowed the exemption, leading to an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed it based on the consignee details in the invoices. The Revenue challenged this decision.

During the hearing, the department reiterated its stance that the exemption was inadmissible due to discrepancies between the contractor's name in the exemption certificate and the consignee details in the invoices. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the goods were indeed supplied to the contractor through a dealer, as evidenced by the consignee details in the invoices. The counsel maintained that the benefit of exemption should not be denied based on this technicality.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal acknowledged that the goods were required for a project financed by the Asian Development Bank and implemented by the Government of Rajasthan. The certificate specified the goods needed for the project and identified the contractor as "M/s. K. Rama Krishna Contractor Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad." Despite the department's objection regarding the invoices, which were addressed to M/s. Nagar Engineering Company as the buyer but listed "M/s. K. Rama Krishna Contractor" as the consignee, the Tribunal found that the goods were ultimately received by the contractor. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, emphasizing that the benefit of the duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. could not be denied based solely on the discrepancy in the consignee details between the invoices and the exemption certificate. The judgment highlighted the importance of substance over form in determining the eligibility for duty exemptions in such cases.