9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) against appeal No. APPL/CE/PCK/187/2004, dated 11-8-2004 before him. The assessee is aggrieved for denial of exemption in terms of notification No. 62/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 whereas the Revenue is aggrieved for allowing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation. 2. The assessee's appeal came before us today. Shri Santhanam, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee mentions that the Revenue has come in appeal against limitation point decided in favour of the assessee. There is no record with the learned DR today in respect of Revenue's appeal. It appears that the matter has come from 2004 before the Tribunal. Revenue's appeal not being before us nor any reference t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed v. CCE, Bangalore - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 725 (Tri.); (5) Empire Machine Tools v. K.C. Singh, Addl. Collector of Cus., Bombay - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 146 (Bom.). 4. Further contention of Shri Santhanam is that when the authorities agreed by their letter dated 27-8-2001 that goods were rightly classified under Chapter Heading 73.10 and declaration were correct, the assessee was given the benefit of notification. Consequent upon such grant, refund was granted to the assessee. Such view was followed by the department not to raise demand. But for the period September, 2002 to February, 2003 and March, 2003 to April, 2003 duty demand of Rs. 7,98,890/- and Rs. 4,80,941/- respectively arose disallowing the benefit. Such a disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 16-3-95 is to be strictly observed in view of cumulative conditions required to be fulfilled. These conditions are to be read together to arrive at the conclusion. For convenience of reading we reproduce item No. 16 of the Notification reading as follows :- 16. The following goods, namely, If,- (i) All goods falling under Chapter 86 (i) manufactured by a factory belonging to the Central Government; (ii) All goods falling under Heading Nos. 28.44, 28.45, 28.51, 32.15, 68.07, 73.07 to 73.11, 73.13 to 73.26, 74.12, 74.14 to 74.18, 76.09 to 76.13, 76.15, 76.16, 83.02, 83.07, 83.08, 83.10, 83.11, 84.01, 84.25, 85.17, 85.30, 85.34, 85.37, 85.38, 85.48, 93.06 and 94.06 (ii) intended to be made available to any depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be made available to any department of Central Government either directly or under any arrangement through the Indian Railway Finance Corporation Limited, being a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the said goods are intended for use by any department of the Central Government. Combined reading of the three conditions require not only the goods to be manufactured by a factory belonging to Central Government but that must be intended to be made available to any department of the Central Government either directly or under any arrangement through the Indian Railway Finance Corpn. Ltd. Such an interpretation clearly establishes spirit of the notification to serve public interest it seeks to achieve. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. (P) Ltd. - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 470 (Tribunal). That decision was on the matter of locus standi of authority issuing a clarification and that is not the present case. The decision in Bharat Electronics Ltd. - 2006 (198) E.L.T. 239 relates to a case of public sector undertaking which had supplied goods in terms of Notification No. 63/95-C.E. For the reasons stated in the case of Sujan Industries as above we state that the citations are misplaced. We looked into decision in Tata Electronic Devpt. Services - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 86 (Tribunal). The matter in that case related to exemption under notification No. 184/86-C.E. That is not pari materia with the facts of the present case. The fact of the present case are different with the facts of that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
