2023 (10) TMI 674 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption benefit of N/N. 15/2010 CE dated 27.02.2010 denied - inability to to produce the amendment certificate. Denial of exemption on the ground that the appellant have violated the condition of Notification No 15/2010-CE in as much as the address of the Superintendent/ Assistant Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner was wrongly mentioned as Changodhar whereas the good were supplied from their Odhav unit. HELD THAT - It can be seen that in the certificate the address of Superintendent/ Assistant Commissioner /Deputy Commissioner of Central excise was wrongly mentioned as Changodhar, Ahmedabad under which the appellant unit does not fall, however, the certificate was issued in favour of the Appellant s Odhav Unit which can be seen from the annexure which is the part of the certificate in column 1 against the name and address of the manufacturer. In the same annexure the name and the address of the project for which goods have been supplied to the project is also mentioned. The said annexure bears the seal and signature of the project i.e. Waa Solar India Pvt Ltd as well as the appellant s Odhav Unit. These details clearly show that the goods were supplied by the appellant s Odhav Unit to the concern project. From the invoices it can be seen that the invoice was raised by the appellant s Odhav unit and the concerned project name was clearly given as Waa Solar India Pvt Ltd. With the given details, it is absolutely clear and beyond any doubt that the goods were supplied by the appellant s Odhav unit to the concerned project for which the certificate was issued. Therefore, the condition of the notification is clearly fulfilled and the address of the Superintendent/ Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner given in the certificate was inadvertently mentioned. Only on that basis, the fact that the Certificate was indeed issued in favour of the Appellant s Odhav unit for supply of goods by the Odhav unit to the Project Waa Solar India Pvt Ltd I not in dispute. Therefore, merely for the small error in the certificate, the benefit of Notification No 15/210-CE cannot be denied. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The case involves the denial of exemption under Notification No. 15/2010-CE due to an error in the address of the Superintendent/Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner on the certificate, despite the goods being supplied from the appellant's Odhav unit.

Summary:

Issue 1: Denial of Exemption under Notification No. 15/2010-CE
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Transformers, cleared goods without payment of central excise duty under Notification No. 15/2010-CE. A show cause notice was issued demanding duty along with penalty and interest due to an error in the certificate's address. The lower authorities denied the exemption, citing the incorrect address mentioned on the certificate. The appellant contended that the goods were supplied from their Odhav unit to the project mentioned in the certificate, despite the address error. The Tribunal examined the certificate, annexure, and invoices, concluding that the goods were indeed supplied by the Odhav unit to the project. The Tribunal held that the error in the certificate's address did not warrant denial of the exemption, as the essential conditions of the notification were met. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Decision:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the denial of exemption under Notification No. 15/2010-CE was unjustified due to a minor error in the certificate's address, as the goods were correctly supplied from the Odhav unit to the designated project.