2015 (10) TMI 1246 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of exemption under Notification No.10/97, dated 01.03.1997 - Held that - Adjudicating authority in his order dated 08.03.2001 examined the issues in detail and allowed the exemption under Notification No.10/07, as the appellant produced the relevant certificate from the Regional Director BARC/CAT. In the appellants own case, for the later period, on an identical issue, this Tribunal vide its order dated 11.062012 has held the decision in favour of the appellant - Since the issue in the present case is also identical to the issue, in the appellants own case, for an earlier period 1999-2000, the impugned order is set aside by following the Tribunals judgment (2012 (6) TMI 732 - CESTAT CHENNAI) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Exemption under Notification No.10/97 for scientific and technical instruments supplied to specified institutions.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of cranes, hoists, and lifting equipment, availed exemption under Notification No.10/97 for supplying goods to specified institutions. The Adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings, but the Revenue appealed. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeal, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant argued that they met the conditions of the notification and produced a certificate from the Regional Director of BARC/CAT. They also cited a previous Tribunal judgment in their favor on a similar issue. The Authorized Representative supported the Order-in-Appeal's findings.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating authority had correctly allowed the exemption based on the certificate produced. Referring to the previous Tribunal judgment, it was established that certificates from competent authorities for duty exemption had been accepted in similar cases related to atomic research. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal.

Given the similarity of the issue in the present case to the previous judgment in the appellant's favor, the impugned order was set aside, following the Tribunal's earlier decision, and the appeal was allowed.