9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (1) TMI 230 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Challenge to denial of exemption under Notification No. 64/95-C.E. for goods supplied to Indian Navy through contractors. Analysis: The appellants contested the denial of exemption under Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 64/95-C.E. for goods supplied to the Indian Navy through contractors. The Commissioner noted that the goods were not directly received by the Indian Navy but by M/s. Mazgoon Dock Ltd. and Western India Shipyard, who then supplied them to the Indian Navy. However, the Indian Navy issued end-use certificates confirming the receipt of goods for consumption on board their vessels. The appellants argued that there was no prohibition on supplies to the Indian Navy through subcontractors, and the Mumbai Bench had previously approved similar transactions in a case involving Goa Paints and Allied Products. This precedent was upheld by the Tribunal and the Apex Court, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue Appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The Tribunal found that the goods supplied to the Indian Navy through subcontractors were eligible for the exemption under the relevant notification. Despite the indirect route of supply, the end-use certificates and precedent set by the Mumbai Bench supported the appellants' claim for exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no explicit prohibition on subcontracted supplies to the Indian Navy under the notification. By following the decision in the case of Goa Paints and Allied Products, which had been approved by the Apex Court, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of exemption in the present case was unwarranted. The rulings in other cases cited by the Commissioner were deemed inapplicable in light of the established precedent and approval by higher courts. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and granted relief to the appellants in line with the previous judgments and legal interpretations.
|
