9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (7) TMI 230 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved: Appeal against denial of benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-95 by the Commissioner (Appeals) u/s Notification provisions.
In this case, the appellants, engaged in manufacturing Accessories for Boilers and Tube or Pipefittings of Iron & Steel, appealed against the denial of benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-95 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants claimed the benefit of the notification as the goods were supplied to a Project financed by the Asian Development Bank. However, the benefit was denied as the appellants failed to produce the required certificate from the Project Implementing Authority. The appellants contended that they had produced a certificate from the Project Implementing Authority stating that the project is financed by the Asian Development Bank and the goods were supplied by M/s. Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. to the Project. The certificate mentioned M/s. Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. as the supplier of "Steam generator," indicating that the goods in question were not liable for duty as per the notification. The Notification No. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-95 stipulates that for availing the benefit, the manufacturer must produce a certificate from the Head of the Project Implementing Authority, countersigned by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India, confirming that the goods were required for a Project financed by specified organizations like the Asian Development Bank. The Tribunal noted that the goods were not directly supplied to the Project financed by the Asian Development Bank by the appellants. While the certificate showed M/s. Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. as the supplier of the Steam generator, no certificate was presented by the appellants indicating them as the supplier of the disputed goods to the specified project. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that to claim an exemption, clear establishment of eligibility is necessary, and in case of doubt, the benefit should favor the State. As the necessary certificate proving supply to the Project financed by the Asian Development Bank was not provided by the appellants, the appeal was rejected.
|
