9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assistant Commissioner, Jaipur. By the said order, the Assistant Commissioner, Jaipur had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 45,304/- against the respondents on the ground that the respondents had cleared the goods without payment of duty on wrong availment of benefit of Notification No. 108/95 dated 28-8-95 read with Notification No. 4/99-C.E., dated 11-2-99 along with interest thereon. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the said order and has granted the benefit of the said notification to the respondents. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of PVR insulated wires and cables classifiable under sub-heading No. 8544.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The letter dated 20-1-2004 was received from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d above. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents approached the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that there was no requirement under the said notification to have certificate in the name of the manufacturer and photocopies would serve the purpose. Reliance was placed in the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. v. C.CE., Pondicherry reported 2005 (185) E.L.T. 430. It was held that the observation regarding endorsement by the competent authority on the photocopy made by the adjudicating authority was beyond the scope of the show cause notice. 3. The DR drawing our attention to the notification submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) ignoring the mandatory conditions attached to the notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fy the requirement of the notification and therefore, there is no justification for interference in the impugned order. 5. The fact that the respondents were issued show cause notice requiring them to show cause against the refusal of the benefit of the said notification on the ground that there was no certificate in the name of the respondents for supply of the goods in question is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that there was no certificate produced by the respondents which could disclose the name of the respondents to be the manufacturer of the goods supplied. Undisputedly, the order for supply of goods to the project was not in the name of the respondents. 6. The Notification No. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-95 read with No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he certificate is necessarily to be in favour of the manufacturer of the goods. The benefit thereunder cannot be claimed by any third person or middle man. The exemption under the said notification is restricted to the manufacturer of the goods. This is obvious because the exemption notification has been issued under Excise law and Excise law relates to the duties payable on manufacture of goods, and the exemption is in relation to the excise duty. 7. As already observed above, once it is not in dispute that the respondents did not have certificate in their favour as required under the said notification merely because some other person who was authorised to supply the goods had transferred his obligation to the respondents, it is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
