2017 (4) TMI 1474 - HC - Central Excise

Certificate under N/N. 108/95 - purchase of material for the work of above Package No. UDA/DR/01 under Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project (RUIDP) - Counsel for the appellant merely contended that in view of the certificate which was issued in his favour by NSC Constructions, he was required to be granted the benefit - HELD THAT - In view of the concurrent finding of the fact, no substantial question of law arises and even otherwise the certificate ought to have been in MOP or no substantive argument for ANS has purchased the material from the present appellant. He might have been in a position to make out the case. Nothing is shown to us to establish that. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's judgment confirming Commissioner (Appeals) order on Central Excise demand based on certificate compliance under Notification No. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-1995.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) order dismissing the appeal and upholding the Central Excise demand.
2. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding errors in the Tribunal's judgment, including sustaining the demand without considering the intended usage for United Nations or approved international organizations.
3. The appellant contended compliance with Notification No. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-1995, by providing a certificate issued to ANS Constructions for a specific project under the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project (RUIDP).
4. The Commissioner (Appeals) found non-compliance with the notification's requirement of producing the certificate before goods clearance, leading to the demand for duty payment, interest, penalty, and penal action under Central Excise Act, 1944.
5. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of certificates produced for the relevant period and noted that the certificate was in ANS Construction Ltd.'s name, not the appellant's, thus denying duty exemption under the notification.
6. Referring to Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal upheld the strict interpretation of exemption notifications, emphasizing the necessity for compliance with the notification's language and requirements.
7. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial legal questions arose, and the certificate should have been in the appellant's name to claim the benefit, as the appellant failed to establish a valid case.

This detailed analysis covers the legal judgment's issues, arguments, findings, and the reasoning behind the decisions made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal regarding the Central Excise demand and compliance with Notification No. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-1995.