1998 (11) TMI 243 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 108/95 for excise duty exemption on goods supplied to international organizations.

Analysis:
The case involved a stay application by a pharmaceutical company against a duty demand and penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for not producing a certificate from the United Nations or an international organization as required by Notification No. 108/95. The company argued that they had complied with the project approval and financing conditions, and the World Bank's approval letters should suffice as certificates. The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) held that strict compliance with the certificate provision was necessary. The company cited Supreme Court judgments for a liberal interpretation post-eligibility confirmation. The respondent argued that the certificate condition was essential, citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing strict compliance with exemption conditions.

The Tribunal noted that the company failed to produce the required certificate from the United Nations or an international organization as mandated by the Notification. The World Bank's letters did not serve as a substitute for the certificate. While an amendment (Notification No. 33/98) introduced a new certificate requirement, the original Notification mandated a certificate from the United Nations or an international organization. Thus, the company's argument for exemption under Notification No. 108/95 was not upheld, requiring a pre-deposit for the appeal hearing.

Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal ordered the company to pre-deposit a specified amount before the appeal hearing, with no pre-deposit required for the penalty amount. The balance of the duty and penalty amounts would remain stayed pending the appeal's disposal, with a compliance reporting date set for a future hearing.