9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 clearly mentioning that this amendment shall form integral part of the Certificate dated 20-9-2007 issued for the purpose of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. - no justification for denying the duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. to the appellants - duty demand against them, interest and penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC is not sustainable. - E/767/2011-EX(BR) - 797/2011-EX(PB) - Dated:- 29-7-2011 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri N. Pathak, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) (For the Bench)]. The appellants are manufacturer of electrical insulators chargeable to Central Excise duty un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncerned Ministry certifying that the goods are intended for a project financed by World Bank, Asian Development Bank or other International Organisations listed in the notification and that the project has been approved by the Government of India. In this case, initially a certificate dated 20-9-2007 was issued by the project authority which was also countersigned by an Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Power. The Certificate mentions the supply of the goods required for the project by BHEL as main contractor and approved sub-contractor of the main contractor. This certificate was amended vide letter dated 6-6-2008 of the Project Authority by which M/s. Modern Industries Insulator Ltd., Abu Road, Rajasthan was adde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in view of this, there is no justification for denying the duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. to the appellant, confirming the duty demand against them and imposition of penalty on them. He, therefore, pleaded that the Appellants have a strong prima facie, case in their favour and hence, the requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of their appeal and recovery thereof may be stayed till disposal of the appeal. 4. Shri N. Pathak, learned SDR, opposed the stay petition by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and pleaded that at the time of clearance, the appellants name was not there in the certificate dated 20-9-2007 issued by the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
