2013 (6) TMI 451 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption - goods supplied to the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) - Notification No.10/97-CE dt. 01/03/1997 - Held that - the benefit of exemption thereunder was available to the assessee in respect of the goods supplied to DRDO for weapon-related research. See. 2011 (7) TMI 749 - CESTAT, BANGALORE - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Waiver and stay of adjudged dues
- Denial of exemption under Notification No.10/97-CE
- Goods supplied to Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO)
- Precedent set by earlier similar appeals

Waiver and Stay of Adjudged Dues:
The applications sought waiver and stay in respect of the adjudged dues. After hearing both sides, the tribunal decided to finally dispose of the appeals at this stage. Upon dispensing with predeposit, both appeals filed by the assessee were taken up for consideration.

Denial of Exemption under Notification No.10/97-CE:
The appeals primarily contested demands of duty due to the denial of exemption under Notification No.10/97-CE dated 01/03/1997 concerning goods supplied to DRDO between November 2008 and September 2010. The tribunal noted that a similar issue had been previously addressed in favor of the assessee by the same bench in Final Order Nos.476-477/2011 dated 28/07/2011. It was established that the benefit of exemption under the said Notification was available to the assessee for goods supplied to DRDO for weapon-related research, a decision that was followed as a precedent in the present case.

Goods Supplied to Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO):
The substantive issue in the present case revolved around goods supplied to DRDO for weapon-related research during a specific period. The appeals arose from periodical show-cause notices issued to the assessee based on similar facts and issues. Given the previous favorable decision in a related matter, where the tribunal had carefully analyzed the provisions of the Notification and granted exemption to the assessee, the tribunal followed this precedent and allowed the present appeals by setting aside the impugned orders.

Precedent Set by Earlier Similar Appeals:
The tribunal relied on the Final Order from a previous case involving the same assessee to resolve the current appeals. Since the issue at hand was identical to the one previously decided in favor of the appellant, and there was no indication of the earlier decision not being accepted by the Department, the tribunal considered the earlier Final Order as a binding precedent and ruled in favor of the appellant, thereby disposing of the stay applications as well.

The judgment concluded by pronouncing the decision in open court, highlighting the importance of precedent and consistent application of legal principles in resolving similar issues.