9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1101 - AT - Central ExciseExemption to goods supplied to the United Nations or an international organisation for their official use or supplied to the projects financed by the said United Nations or an international organisation and approved by the Government of India - Benefit of Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.95 - retrospective amendment of notification or not - time limitation - HELD THAT - In accordance with the said Notification, on the basis of the project certificate issued mentioning the name of the contractor M/s Ketan Constructions Ltd., undisputedly 9 Nos. of tippers were cleared by the Appellant to the said contractor to be used in a project funded by the World Bank. After completion of the said project, on enquiry from the contractor about the use of said Tippers in other such eligible project, when denied, demand notice was issued to the appellant on the basis of insertion of Explanation-2 to the Notification No.13/2008-CE dated 1.3.2008 - The Explanation-2 was inserted with effect from 1.3.2008. Revenue sought to apply the said Notification retrospectively and demanded duty from the appellants alleging that after completion of the project, if the 9 nos. tippers which were used in the completion of project, later if withdrawn, even after completion of the project, they would not be eligible to the benefit of the said Notification. The issue of retrospective applicability of Explanation-2 to the Notification was considered by this Tribunal in the case of L T Komatsu Ltd. 2016 (7) TMI 290 - CESTAT BANGALORE holding amendment to the original Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.1995 made by Notification No.13/2008-CE dated 1.3.2008 would have prospective operation and the demand against the appellants can be sustained only for one year period which is within the period of limitation. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The appellant availed the exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.95 on the basis of Certificates issued by the Project Authority from time to time and the clearance of tippers by availing the benefit of Notification declared in their monthly ER-1 returns, hence no fact was suppressed from the knowledge of the department - It is held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in J.K. SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1987 (10) TMI 51 - SUPREME COURT and followed in a series of judgments that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in demanding duty on the basis of applying an amendment retrospectively, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The impugned order is not sustainable, consequently, the same is set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the applicability of Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.95, retrospective application of Explanation-2 to the said Notification, and the invocation of extended period of limitation for demanding duty. Applicability of Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.95: The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles, cleared tippers to a contractor for a road construction project financed by the World Bank. The dispute arose when it was alleged that the tippers were not eligible for exemption under the said Notification as they were withdrawn by the contractor after the completion of the project. The Tribunal considered previous judgments and held that the conditions of the Notification were fulfilled as the goods were used in the project, and there was no dispute regarding their use. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the Notification. Retrospective Application of Explanation-2: The insertion of Explanation-2 to the Notification by Notification No.13/2008-CE dated 1.3.2008 was the subject of contention. The Revenue sought to apply this explanation retrospectively and demanded duty from the appellants. However, the Tribunal, citing previous cases, held that the amendment cannot be applied retrospectively. It was noted that there was no suppression of facts by the appellants, and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked based on retrospective application of the amendment. Extended Period of Limitation: Regarding the issue of limitation, the Tribunal found that the appellants had availed the exemption under the Notification based on certificates issued by the Project Authority and had declared the clearances in their monthly returns. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments to conclude that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for demanding duty based on the retrospective application of an amendment. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
|
