9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 213 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of N/N. 10/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997 - the appellant manufactured certain goods and supplied the same to M/s. Solid State Physics Laboratory, Delhi, which is working under Defense Research and Development Organization - denial of notification on the ground that the goods cleared by the appellant were not specified in the said notification - Held that - The notification is applicable for Apparatus and it requires a certificate by DRDO to the effect that the goods are required for such purpose. We find that all the requirements of the notification are fulfilled. The ledger also indicates that the Excise duty component has not been received by the manufacturer - benefit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 10/97-C.E. 2. Rejection of refund claim by the Original Authority. 3. Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent rejection. 4. Grounds of appeal based on the specific function of the goods. 5. Arguments presented by Ms. Stuti Saggi, Advocate. 6. Support for the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal by the ld. DR for Revenue. 7. Examination of records by the Tribunal. 8. Decision to allow the appeal and direct the Original Authority to pay the refund. Issue 1: The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No. 10/97-C.E., stating that the goods supplied were eligible for exemption. The Original Authority rejected the claim, asserting that the goods were not specified in the notification. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. Issue 2: The Original Authority rejected the refund claim, contending that the duty was passed on to the customers and the goods did not fall under the specified category in the notification. The appellant provided evidence, including a certificate from the Director of the Laboratory, to support their claim for exemption. Issue 3: The appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) resulted in a rejection based on the goods not being specified in the notification, leading to the subsequent appeal before the Tribunal. Issue 4: The grounds of appeal centered around the specific function of the goods, arguing that they fell under the category covered by Notification No. 10/97. Issue 5: Ms. Stuti Saggi, Advocate for the appellant, presented the case emphasizing the requirement of a certificate from the Director of the Laboratory, which was issued to support the eligibility of the goods for exemption under the notification. Issue 6: The ld. DR for Revenue supported the decisions of the Original Authority and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), maintaining the position against granting the refund. Issue 7: The Tribunal carefully examined the records, including the invoice, certificate from the Laboratory, and ledger account, to assess the eligibility of the goods for exemption under the notification. Issue 8: After reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal found that all requirements of the notification were fulfilled, including the specific function of the goods and the certificate from the DRDO. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the Original Authority to refund the amount within a specified timeframe.
|
