9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1005 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of exemption under the Notification No. 64/1995-CE on the ground that the goods cannot be treated as ship stores - Held that - Apex Court s decision 2014 (6) TMI 345 - SUPREME COURT is squarely applicable as there is no dispute on facts that appellants have supplied the radar and its parts to Indian navy which is supported by the certificate issued by the competent authority. Therefore the appellant has rightly claimed the excise duty paid on the goods supplied to the Indian Navy and they are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 64/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995. - By respectfully following the ratio delivered in the above judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India we hold that the respondent/assessee are eligible for exemption under Notification No.64/1995-CE (Sl.No.3) dated 16.3.1995 as amended by Notification No.25/2002-CE dated 11.04.2002 - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 64/1995-CE and Notification No. 6/2006-CE. 2. Interpretation of whether the goods supplied were ship stores. 3. Verification of aspects of time bar and unjust enrichment by the adjudicating authority. Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 64/1995-CE and Notification No. 6/2006-CE The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of the respondent company for exemption under Notification No. 64/1995-CE and Notification No. 6/2006-CE. The respondent claimed exemption under Notification No. 64/1995-CE as the goods supplied were certified by the Ministry of Defence (Navy) to be exempt from excise duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal subject to verification of time bar and unjust enrichment. The revenue contended that the goods supplied were not ship stores and that the exemption was wrongly granted. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and relevant case law, upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the respondent was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 64/1995-CE as amended by Notification No. 25/2002-CE. Issue 2: Interpretation of whether the goods supplied were ship stores The revenue argued that the goods supplied were not in the nature of ship stores, thus not eligible for exemption under the relevant notifications. However, the respondent contended that the goods qualified as ship stores as per the Customs Act and were parts of helicopters supplied to the Indian Navy. The Tribunal referred to a Board Circular and relevant case law to support the respondent's claim that the goods were indeed ship stores. The Tribunal also highlighted a Supreme Court judgment that affirmed the goods supplied for consumption on board vessels of the Indian Navy were considered as stores. Based on this interpretation and the evidence provided, the Tribunal concluded that the goods supplied by the respondent were eligible for exemption under the applicable notifications. Issue 3: Verification of aspects of time bar and unjust enrichment The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal subject to the verification of time bar and unjust enrichment by the adjudicating authority. The revenue argued that the exemption was wrongly granted as the goods were not used as ship stores and the necessary certification was not provided by the Indian Navy. However, the respondent presented a clear certificate from the competent authority certifying the exemption status of the goods supplied. The Tribunal, after reviewing the certificate and relevant legal precedents, found no infirmity in the Commissioner's decision to grant the exemption. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, affirming their eligibility for exemption under the relevant notifications based on the evidence provided and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and case law.
|
