2013 (7) TMI 244 - HC - Central Excise

Benefit of Notification No.108/95 C.E. - projected funded by the UN - Machineries not given directly to the project implementing authority but given to the agency executing the work - Machineries had been put in use by the sub-contractors, who were given the job of execution Held that - The fact cannot go against the assessee s claim - The use of the phrase supplied to the projects financed by the said United Nations or an International Organisation and approved by the Government of India clearly shows that the condition for grant of exemption is supply of the goods towards the project and nothing beyond - Notification applies to the case on hand. In the circumstances - No justification to introduce any condition or read the Notificatin No. 108/95 C.E. in a restrictive manner Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether goods supplied to individual contractors for a project qualify for exemption under Notification No.108/95?
2. Whether the use of goods by contractors for a short duration qualifies for exemption when not directly supplied to the project or the funding organization?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute where the Revenue challenged the exemption claimed by the respondent, a manufacturer of earth-moving equipment, under Notification No.108/95 for goods supplied to contractors working on the "Golden Quadrilateral Road Project." The Revenue argued that the goods were not supplied to the Project Implementing Authority directly, leading to a demand for duty. The respondent contended that the goods were intended for the project's implementation, meeting the Notification's objective. The Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the claim, emphasizing that only the project implementing authority should receive the machineries. However, the CESTAT ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the goods were used in the designated project, and after completion, were retained by sub-contractors, not affecting the exemption eligibility. The Court upheld the CESTAT decision, emphasizing the public interest nature of the Notification and the fulfillment of conditions, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2:
The Revenue argued that since the machineries were not given to the project implementing authority and were supplied to sub-contractors, there was a risk of misuse, justifying duty imposition and exemption denial. However, the Court found no evidence of possible misuse and highlighted that the project was executed by contractors under the authority's direction. The Court emphasized that the goods were used by sub-contractors for project execution, meeting the exemption conditions of supply to the project financed by the international organization. The Court referenced the Notification's language, emphasizing the requirement for goods supply towards the project for exemption eligibility. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CESTAT decision based on factual findings and the Notification's public interest objectives.