1999 (3) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... atur District of Maharashtra. The said exemption has been denied to them in these three cases on the ground that :- (a) the goods were not supplied directly from the factory, but through the depot of the manufacturer, whereas the said notification requires to the contrary; (b) that no certificate is available on the clearance documents to the effect that the goods were required for the said earthquake relief related activity; and (c) that in view of the goods not being directly despatched from the factory, co-relation with the End-use Certificate of the State Govt. is not possible. 2. Heard Shri C. Chidambaram, ld. Consultant who submits that in the show cause notices in question, the only ground on which the duty exemption is sough .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cks continued with the supply through the consignee s declared invoices. Only for financial accounting purpose, the goods were said to have been supplied through the depot. In this connection ld. consultant cites the decision in the case of Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that where once a goods is found to satisfy the test by which it falls under the exemption notification, then it cannot be excluded from it by resorting to applying or construing the notification narrowly. He submits in this case at the time of clearance of goods from the factory the same has been consigned for earthquake relief. Thereafter, the District Collector of the State Govt. concerned has certified that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the manufacturer shall certify on the clearance documents that the goods are required for such relief work is fully met in view of these facts available on the clearance documents. The only issue that remains now is whether the exemption could be made available even though the goods were sent through the manufacturers depots. In this case, we find that there is nothing on record to show that the goods which were cleared from the factory after reaching the depot, got mixed up with the goods already lying in the depot and that thereafter they were re-loaded on some other conveyance and sent to the consignee. If this would have been done, the invoices from the factory would have been made in the name of the depot and not in the name of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X