9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion No. 13/2008-CE dt. 1.3.2008 – Held that:- Demand can be confirmed only based on a specific finding that the goods were removed outside the project and not based on a probability that goods can be removed out of the project because the exemption is not with reference to the nature of goods - Explanation 2 is only to the effect that exemption is available to goods which are not withdrawn from the project by the supplier or contractor - Appeal is admitted without any pre-deposit. - E/40732-40734/13 - Misc. Order Nos. 41839-41841/2013 - Dated:- 18-7-2013 - Shri. P.K. Das and Shri. Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri K.S.Venkatagiri, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri K.S.V.V.Prasad, JC (AR) ORDER Per Mathew John; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied that the benefit under this notification, in the case of goods supplied to the projects financed by the United Nations or an international organization, is available when the goods brought into the project are not withdrawn by the supplier or contractor and the expression goods are required for the execution of the project shall be construed accordingly. 3. Revenue was of the view that the impugned goods cleared claiming exemption cannot form part of the project and would get eventually cleared out of the project and therefore they were not eligible for the said exemption. On such basis, three show cause notices dated 20-05-09 were issued demanding duty on goods cleared during the period July 08 to February 09. The allegations raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issuing certificate, the project authority states that the goods specified in the certificate is required to be supplied to a specified contractor who is executing part of the project. He also submits that question whether exemption under this notification could be extended or not came up for decision before Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Pondicherry reported in 2008 (185) ELT 430 (Tri.-Del.) and was decided in favour of the assessee. Revenue challenged this order before the Hon ble Madras High Court. The Hon. Court very recently upheld the decision of the Tribunal that supplies made to contractors executing the project were eligible for the exemption. Therefore, he submits that first aspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n goods are withdrawn from the project, the goods are not eligible for exemption. He invites our attention to the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bird Machines Vs CCE Delhi - 2011 (263) ELT 82 (Tri.-Del.), especially para-39 of the order, wherein it has been held that withdrawal of machine even after completion of project would disqualify for the exemption under the said notification. Ld. AR submits that final order of the Tribunal should prevail over stay order of the Calcutta Bench. He further points out that Calcutta Bench has not considered decision in the case of Bird Machines (supra). 8. We have considered the submissions on both sides. The objection of the Revenue that exemption is not available when goods ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
