2017 (10) TMI 652 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 - denial on the ground that the goods were not supplied to the project or Project Implementing Authority but to the contractors who continued to the owner of the said goods even after the completion of the project - Held that - in appellants own case M/s Escorts Construction Equipment Ltd. (ECEL) Versus CCE Delhi-IV 2017 (1) TMI 1352 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH for the earlier period it was held that ultimately as the machineries had been put in use by the sub contractors who were given the job of execution the claim for exemption cannot be denied - the appellant is entitled for the benefit of exemption N/N. 108/95-CE dated 28.8.1995 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of benefit of exemption notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 to the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Excavator Loaders and Earthmoving Machinery, had cleared goods for projects to contractors availing benefits under the exemption notification. However, it was found that the goods were not supplied to the project or Project Implementing Authority but to the contractors. Show cause notices were issued, leading to the denial of exemption, demand of duty, interest, and penalties. The appellant contended that a previous Tribunal decision allowed the benefit of the same exemption notification. The Tribunal examined the notification's conditions and held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit as the projects were financed by an International Organisation approved by the Government of India, and all necessary certificates were produced. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods' use for the project satisfied the conditions of the notification, and supplying goods to contractors did not disqualify the appellant from the exemption. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments supporting this interpretation and concluded that the appellant met the notification's requirements, thus allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal's analysis focused on the interpretation of the exemption notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995. It emphasized that the appellant's compliance with the conditions specified in the notification, such as supplying goods for projects financed by an International Organisation and approved by the Government of India, entitled them to the exemption. The Tribunal rejected the argument that supplying goods to contractors instead of the project implementing authority invalidated the exemption claim, citing precedents that supported a broad interpretation of the notification's language. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the notification's language, previous Tribunal decisions, and judicial interpretations, ultimately concluding that the appellant met the necessary criteria for exemption.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the exemption notification and relevant legal precedents led to the decision in favor of the appellant. By considering the specific conditions outlined in the notification, the Tribunal determined that the appellant qualified for the exemption despite supplying goods to contractors instead of the project implementing authority. The Tribunal's reliance on previous judgments and a broad interpretation of the notification's language supported the appellant's entitlement to the exemption, resulting in the appeal being allowed and the impugned order set aside.