9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions or an International Organisation and approved by the Government of India' clearly shows that the condition for grant of exemption is supply of the goods towards the project and nothing beyond – With all the conditions satisfied, the beneficial Notification applies – there is no justification to introduce any condition or read in a restrictive manner – Relying upon DEE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA [2010 (2) TMI 535 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] and CCE, Pondichery Vs. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (7) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ]- the appellant is eligible for availing the benefit of Notification No.108/95-CE in respect of goods cleared by them for use in earthquake affected area – Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/132/2007-DB - - - Dated:- 15-10-2013 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri J.C. Patel, Shri Rahul Gajera - Advocates For the Respondent : Shri Manoj Kutty, A.R. ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.COMMR.(A)/ 209/ VDR-I/2006, dt.20.11.2006. 2. The relevant facts the case, in brief, are that the appellants have cleared excisable go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fulfill the conditions of availing of benefit of Notification No.108/95-CE, dt.28.08.1995. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the adjudicating authority, the appellant preferred an appeal before first appellate authority. The first appellate authority, after following the due process of law, did not agree with the contentions raised by the appellant, rejected the appeal filed on merit. 6. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would take us through the Order-in-Appeal. He would submit that it is not in dispute that the appellant had produced certificate from the Project Implementing Authority duly countersigned by the Principle Secretary/Secretary of the State Government as stipulated but the said certificate was in the name of the contractor and the appellants name was not mentioned anywhere as contractor or as a sub-contractor. It is his submission that the TMT bars which were cleared by the appellant, in fact, used for reconstruction of Kuchh area, is undisputed. It is also his submission that it is also not in dispute that the appellant had produced all the certificates claiming exemption under Notification No.108/95, before the goods were cleared from the factory p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantial compliance as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Hari Chand Shri Gopal [2010 (260) ELT 3 (SC)]. 9. In rejoinder, ld.Counsel would draw our attention to the decision passed by this Bench in the case of Hindustan Colas Ltd. and submit that this Bench considered the contrary decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dee Development Engineers Ltd and despite it held in favour of the assessee. It is his submission that this decision of the Tribunal at Ahmedabad, has not been challenged by the Revenue in any higher forum. 10. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 11. The only issue to be decided in this case is whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.108/95-CE on a certificate which has been issued in the name of the contractor who was executing the project which has been financed by World Bank and Asian Development Bank. 12. In the case in hand, it is undisputed that the appellant had filed the certificate issued by the Project Implementing Authority/Secretary State Government while clearing the goods from the factory premises. The said clearances took place for the period Apri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roject"?" 2. It is seen from the order of the Authorities below that the respondent herein are manufacturer of variety of earth-moving equipment and some of their products were cleared under Notification No.108/95 dated 28.08.1995 to the Contractors executing the "Golden Quadrilateral Road Project" financed by United Nations and International Organisation, thus, thereby, claimed exemption from duty. 3. The claim of the assessee was however disputed by the Revenue by issuing a show cause notice demanding duty of Rs.89,74,400/- on the ground that the assessee had cleared the goods to the Contractors on the respective projects and not to the Project Implementing Authority themselves and that the contractors continue to be the owners of the goods even after the completion of the projects. 4. The contention of the Revenue was contested by the respondent by filing a reply 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 bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding 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 Contractors as per the directions of the Project Implementing Authority, the fact that the machineries were not given directly to the project implementing authority but given to the agency executing the work in fact cannot go against the assessee's claim. Thus ultimately, as the machineries had been put in use by the sub-contractors, who were given the job of execution the claim for exemption cannot be denied. The use of the phrase 'supplied to the projects financed by the said United Nations or an International Organisation and approved by the Government of India' clearly shows that the condition for grant of exemption is supply of the goods towards the project and nothing beyond. The extract of the Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 reads as follows:- " In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (1 of 1944) read with s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
