9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the goods under reference are supplied for setting up of Godawari Lift Irrigation Scheme having no facility of water treatment; that the Notification stipulates that the certificate should be in the name of the manufacturer of the excisable goods required to be issued by the District Collector in which the project is located, whereas in the instant case, the certificate bearing No. H7/4029/2005 dated 16-6-2005 issued by the District Collector, Warangal (Andhra Pradesh) is not in the name of the assessee but in the name of M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. (KBL) ; that the Notification stipulates that the certificate issued by the District Collector has to be produced before the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the factory or the manufacturer before effecting the clearances of the excisable goods from the factory, whereas in the instant case, the assessee has not produced the said certificate issued by the District Collector; that the details of the project and the use of the goods to be supplied are to be given in the certificate issued by the District Collector; that however, it is not appearing in the certificate. Basing on the above allegations, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) that the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Hindustan Colas Ltd. v. CCE - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 430 (T) = 2007 (81) RLT 504 has laid down that merely because the certificate issued under Notification No. 3/2004 is in the name of the main contractor and is not in the name of the manufacturer-supplier of the goods, exemption under Notification No. 3/2004 is not deniable; (iv) that the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Spic Organic Ltd. v. CCE - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 73, Caterpillar India (P) Ltd. [2005 (185) E.L.T. 430, Automatic Electrics Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 524 (T) = 2004 (65) RLT 303, CESTAT F.O. No. 1613 and 1614/2005 dated 9-9-2005 [2006 (206) E.L.T. 246 (T) in the case of Deepak Cables v. CCE, has laid down the same ratio; (v) that the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals-II), Pune vide his OIA No. PII/BKS/37/2007 dated 20-3-2007 in the case of M/s. PEC Electro Controls Pvt. Ltd. has laid down that the exemption under Notification No. 3/2004 is not deniable because the certificate was issued under the said notification is in the name of M/s. KBL; (vi) that the decisions in the case of Spic Organics and Caterpillar India. as well as in the above sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector was not submitted before the Assistant Commissioner is not correct since the appellant had submitted the same before the Superintendent, Central Excise incharge of the appellant s unit who is also part and parcel of the Assistant Commissioner s office. When the certificate was submitted to the Range Officer, who should have directed the appellant to submit the same before the Assistant Commissioner or he should have forwarded the same to the Assistant Commissioner but the Range Officer has done nothing and for his mistake, denying the appellant s benefit of exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-C.E. dated 8-1-2004 is totally unjust; (xii) that the penalty is imposable only in the cases where the contraventions of the provisions of Central Excise Act/Rules is done deliberately with mala fide intention. However, in their case, all the transactions are done with the knowledge of the Department. Further, the issue involved is of interpretation of provisions of Notification No. 3/2004 and thus, in such situations, imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant is also not correct; (xiii) that without prejudice to the above, they further submitted that nowhere in the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above Order, the appellant has come up with the present appeal and stay petition. The contention of the appellant that the District Collector s certificate was not in the name of the appellant and was in the name of the main contractor namely, M/s. Kirloskar Bros Ltd. (KBL) is a technical violation. There is no dispute regarding the procurement of goods by the appellant and usage of the same in the project. As regards non-production of certificate before the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant contended that the said certificate was produced before the Range Officer before clearance of the goods. He further contended that if the Range Officer is not concerned office, either he should have forwarded the said certificate to the Assistant Commissioner or directed the appellant to go to the Assistant Commissioner and produce the same before him. But he has not done either of things. However, they contended that non-production of certificate before the Assistant Commissioner is also a purely technical failure. The appellant, to defend his case has relied on the following decisions, which are squarely covering the present issue. The decisions relied upon by the appellant are as foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be seen that there is no necessity that the certificate should be in the name of the supplier and there is no bar to issue certificate in the name of the contractor. What is to be seen is whether the goods were procured and were used for the purpose for which the certificate was obtained. In the instant case, there is no such dispute on the above aspect. It may also be seen that Notification No. 03/2004 nowhere mentions that the certificate should be issued only in the name of the supplier. Notification says that that a certificate issued by the Collector / Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate of the District in which the project is located, is produced to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction, to the fact that such goods are cleared for the intended use specified above". As already held that the goods procured by the appellant were used for the intended purpose. The second contention is that the certificate should be produced before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner. In the instant case, it is on record that the appellant has produced certificate before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
