2018 (5) TMI 298 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 108/95 dated 28/08/1995 - goods manufacture for supply to projects financed by the Asian Development Bank - denial of benefit on the ground that the goods manufactured by the appellant have not supplied to the project but to the contractors - Held that - the goods had admittedly been used in the project and after the completion of the projects, the goods supplied to the various sub contractors were entrusted to retain the goods supplied could not stand in the way of granting, the exemption under the Notification - benefit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
- Denial of benefit of exemption notification No.108/95-CE dated 28/08/1995 to the appellant.
- Interpretation of conditions for availing the benefit of the exemption notification.
- Applicability of the exemption notification to goods supplied to projects financed by international organizations.
- Justifiability of denying the benefit of the notification based on the goods being supplied to contractors instead of the project directly.

Analysis:
1. Denial of Benefit of Exemption Notification: The appellant appealed against the order denying them the benefit of exemption notification No.108/95-CE dated 28/08/1995. The Revenue contended that since the goods were supplied to contractors and not directly to the project, the appellant was not entitled to the exemption. The show-cause notice invoked the extended period of limitation to deny the benefit, leading to a demand for duty, interest, and penalty. The Tribunal observed that the demand for duty within the period of limitation was confirmed, and equivalent penalty was imposed. The appellant challenged this order.

2. Interpretation of Conditions for Availing Exemption: The Tribunal examined the conditions of the exemption notification, which required goods to be supplied to projects financed by international organizations and approved by the Government of India. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had produced the necessary certificate from the Project Implementing Authority to avail the benefit of the exemption notification. It was established that the projects were financed by the Asian Development Bank and approved by the Government of India. The Tribunal emphasized that all conditions of the notification were satisfied by the appellant, making them entitled to the benefit of the exemption.

3. Applicability of Exemption to Goods Supplied to Projects: The Tribunal clarified that the exemption applied when goods were supplied to projects financed by international organizations and approved by the Government of India. It was highlighted that the goods need not be directly paid for by the organization financing the project. The Tribunal referenced previous cases to support the interpretation that the use of goods for the project, even if retained by subcontractors after implementation, did not disqualify the appellant from the exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that the conditions for granting the exemption were fulfilled by the appellant, and the machinery being used by subcontractors did not negate the claim for exemption.

4. Justifiability of Denying Benefit Based on Indirect Supply: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that supplying goods to contractors instead of the project directly was a reason to deny the benefit of the notification. It was emphasized that the machinery being used by subcontractors for the project did not warrant denial of the exemption. The Tribunal concluded that the conditions for the exemption were met, and there was no justification to introduce additional conditions or interpret the notification restrictively. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that they were entitled to the benefit of exemption notification No.108/95-CE dated 28/08/1995 as the conditions specified in the notification were satisfied. The judgment emphasized that the exemption applied to goods supplied to projects financed by international organizations, and the use of machinery by subcontractors did not invalidate the appellant's claim for exemption.

← Previous Next →