9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 457 - AT - Central ExciseGoods cleared to Public Funded Research Institutions as well as to certain other Institutions - benefit of N/N. 10/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 - Department was of the view that the benefit of the notification will not be available to the goods under the certificate since category 1(d) is for prototype for which value limit of ₹ 50,000/- applies - HELD THAT - The notification permits duty free clearances for goods to be supplied to Public Funded Research Institutions. DRDO, to whom the appellant has cleared the goods, is one of the agencies specified in the notification. The goods cleared by the appellant are covered by the amended certificates and the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of the duty free clearance under the said notification. The goods mentioned in the DRDO certificate are not in the nature of Prototype as can be seen from the amended certificate issued by DRDO in respect of one set of the items for appeal no. E/75033/2019. Thus, the benefit cannot also be denied for the same goods cleared to DRDO - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 for duty exemption. 2. Validity of certificates issued by DRDO for duty-free clearance of goods. 3. Discrepancies in certificates and subsequent amendments. 4. Denial of benefit of notification by the Department. 5. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 130/Kol-III/2018 and Order-in-Original No. 23/ COMMR /CE /KOL-III dated 12.09.2018 and 19.09.2008 respectively. Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 10/97-CE: The appellant supplied goods in 2005 under Notification No. 10/97-CE, which exempts duty for goods cleared to Public Funded Research Institutions. The dispute arose as the Department contended that the goods exceeded the value limit for the category "Prototype," thus denying the exemption. The appellant argued that subsequent amended certificates corrected these discrepancies, entitling them to the duty-free clearance. Issue 2: Validity of DRDO Certificates: Certificates issued by DRDO for the goods indicated the category as "Prototype," leading to the Department's denial of duty exemption. The appellant sought to rectify this by obtaining amended certificates post-clearance. The Tribunal noted that the certificates were issued by the proper authorities specified in the notification, and amended certificates aligned with the goods cleared, allowing the benefit of duty-free clearance. Issue 3: Discrepancies and Amendments: The appellant faced discrepancies in certificates issued by DRDO, categorizing goods as "Prototype," conflicting with the value limits set in the notification. However, post-clearance, DRDO issued amended certificates correcting these errors. The Tribunal considered these amendments and granted the appellant the benefit of duty-free clearance based on the corrected certificates. Issue 4: Denial of Benefit by the Department: The Department denied the benefit of Notification No. 10/97-CE due to perceived discrepancies in the original certificates. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the subsequent issuance of amended certificates by DRDO, rectifying the errors and aligning with the goods cleared. This led to the reversal of the Department's decision and the allowance of duty exemption for the appellant. Issue 5: Appeal against Orders: The appeals were lodged against Order-in-Appeal No. 130/Kol-III/2018 and Order-in-Original No. 23/ COMMR /CE /KOL-III dated 12.09.2018 and 19.09.2008, respectively. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, set aside the impugned orders and allowed both appeals in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the alignment of amended certificates with the goods cleared for duty exemption. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the interpretation of the notification, validity of certificates, discrepancies, denial of benefits, and the ultimate decision of the Tribunal in favor of the appellant based on the amended certificates aligning with the goods cleared for duty exemption.
|
