9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 560 - AT - Central ExciseSupplies made to UNICEF for their official use - Denial of the benefit of notf. No. 108/95 dated 28.8.1995 - Imposition of interest and penalty - Held that - It is evident from the notification that in case the goods are for official use by UNICEF (which is admittedly a U.N. Body), only a certificate from the U.N. body to that effect is sufficient to grant the said exemption and no approval by Govt. of India is stipulated for that purpose. It is immaterial that the certificate in question did not mention exemption from Excise duty (even if it did mention sales tax/ octroi etc.) because for the benefit of notf. 108/95-CE what is required is a certificate to the effect that the goods are meant for their official use which the certificate in question in effect duly certifies and in any case that the goods were for official use of UNICEF is not in question in the present case. - appellants are entitled to the benefit under notif. No. 108/95 dated 28.8.1995 in respect of supplies made to UNICEF for their official use as certified by them (i.e. UNICEF) and therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner for denovo adjudication in terms of CESTAT order No. 675-676/04-NB-A dated 2.7.2004 after allowing the benefit of Notf. No. 108/95-CE dated28.08.95 in respect of such supplies made to UNICEF. - Decided in favour of assesee.
Issues involved:
1. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 108/95 dated 28.8.1995 for supplies made to UNICEF. Analysis: The appellant had approached the CESTAT for the second time after a remand by CESTAT in an earlier round. The Commissioner had passed an Order-in-Original confirming duty demand, interest, and penalty, which the appellants contested on the grounds of being denied the benefit of Notification No. 108/95. The Commissioner had denied the benefit based on specific grounds mentioned in the impugned order. The certificate issued by UNICEF, as presented by the appellants, indicated that the goods were for the official use of UNICEF, which was not disputed by the adjudicating authority. The relevant Notification No. 108/95 exempted goods supplied to the United Nations or international organizations for official use or to projects financed by these entities and approved by the Government of India. The notification required specific certificates before clearance of goods, depending on the nature of the supply. In this case, the certificate from UNICEF stating the goods were for official use sufficed for claiming the exemption under the notification. The absence of a specific mention of excise duty exemption in the certificate did not negate the entitlement to exemption under the notification. The CESTAT held that the appellants were indeed entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 108/95 for supplies made to UNICEF for their official use, as certified by UNICEF. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with the CESTAT order and allowing the benefit of the said notification for the relevant supplies made to UNICEF. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, the arguments presented by the parties, the legal provisions involved, and the final decision rendered by the CESTAT in favor of the appellants based on the interpretation of the relevant notification and supporting documentation provided.
|
