Not. No. 108/95 CE and 84/97 Cus, Central Excise

[Chintamani Bhide]

Dear all,

A project under ICB, funded by ADB and approved by Govt of India is awarded to Joint Venture, ABC. The project gets covered under clause C (ii) or (iii) of notification 108/95 CE and clause (ii) or (iii) of notification 84/97 Cus. The entire contract for execution of project is given to ‘A’ who is one of the constituents of the JV. PAC/Essentially Certificate issued to JV contains a list of suppliers/supporting manufacturers, (Indian and Overseas supplier ‘BC’. )
‘A’ intends to procure goods, equipments and machinery etc from listed suppliers.

1) Can these suppliers, subject to fulfillment of other conditions of the notification 108/95 CE, clear the goods w/o payment of excise duty to ‘A’ as a Buyer and ‘ABC JV’ as a consignee ?

2) Can ‘A’, subject to fulfillment of other conditions of the notification and filing BOE in his name, import from listed overseas supplier w/o payment of customs duty under 84/97 Cus ?

3) What would be the position if PAC/EC does not specifically mention the suppliers, whether local or overseas ?

Posts / Replies

[shyam prasad mahanta]

Reply is given as per Sl No:

1) Subject to fulfillment of conditions specified in notification no 108/95 dt 28.08.1995, the suppliers can clear the goods w/o payment of duty to A as buyer and ABC as consignee. However, A and ABC need to have TIN nos to avoid VAT/CST problem and waybill issues. Before clearance, suppliers have to deposit original copy of PAC issued u/n notification no 108/95, to the jurisdictional Excise office with ack:.

2) Subject to fulfillment of conditions specified in notification no 84/97 Cus, A can avail duty free import of goods from overseas suppliers specified in the PAC subject to submission of same with jurisdictional Office of Commissioner Customs situated in proposed Port of import.

3) Unless PAC contain name of suppliers local / overseas, no clearance/ import allowed under relevant rules.

[Chintamani Bhide]

Thank you Mr. Shama Prasad,

I was of the same opinion. let us wait for contribution from any other member/subscriber.

[Naveed S]

Point No. 3 -- There has been instances wherein benefit of exemption notification no. 108/95 CE has been allowed, even in absence of the name of the supplier. However, such issues are to be interpreted on case to case basis. For example in following case, the benefit has been allowed even though the name of the supplier is not mentioned :-

2011 (8) TMI 929 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I Versus BAKEWELL AGRO LTD.

E/697/2005 Order No. - 789/2011-EX(PB) Dated - 17 August 2011

Notification No. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-95 - As the certificate was not issued in the name of the assessees, the department was of the view that the conditions of the notification were not fulfilled and accordingly, issued two show cause notices both dated 19-11-2003 proposing recovery of duty of ₹ 53,03,047/- as result of denial of benefit of the notification was issued - The agreement clearly brings out that M/s. MFIL, to whom a contract had been awarded by the United Nations World Food Programme for supply of fortified biscuits to Afghanistan, had engaged the respondents to manufacture such biscuits and supplied them to the United Nations World Food Programme - the certificate issued by the project implementing authority under Notification No. 108/95 is not necessarily required to be in the name of supplier of the products used in the project, are directly applicable to the facts of the present case - Decided in favor of the assessee.