9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing beyond - Notification applies to the case on hand. In the circumstances - No justification to introduce any condition or read the Notificatin No. 108/95 C.E. in a restrictive manner – Decided against the Revenue. - C.M.A.No.3459 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. S. Thirumavalavan For the Respondent : Mr. P. R. Renganath JUDGMENT (The Judgment of the Court was made by Chitra Venkataraman, J.) The Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in No.362/2005 dated 14.03.2005 raising the following substantial questions of law :- "1. Whether or not the impugned goods supplied to the individ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stating that expression 'intended to be supplied to' has not been defined. The assessee contended that the said phrase has to be understood as one required for implementation of the Project as appearing in Sub Clause (i) and (ii) of Clause (c) of proviso of Notification ; thus, the question of rejection of the benefit under the Notification does not arise. The assessee pointed out that when the object of the Notification is met, the exemption could not be rejected. 5. The claim of the assessee was however rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise and reconfirmed the earlier view by pointing out that the only authority to whom the machineries could be given was only the project implementing authority and there was nothing to show tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue pointed out that the on the admitted fact that the machineries had not been entrusted to the contract implementing authority and that the supply of goods were to the Sub-Contractors leading to possible misuse of the goods for unintended purposes, no exception could be made to the imposition of duty and there-by reject the benefit of the Notification. 8. We do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the order of the CESTAT based on a factual finding and there was no material placed by the Revenue on the allegations of the possible misuse of the goods for unintended purposes by the Sub-Contractors. Secondly, being the beneficial Notification issued in public interest and the project itself being executed fully by the Contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
