9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the projects and that the projects are financed by the Asian Development Bank through loan and have been duly approved by the Govt. of India, have been produced. The only objection of the Department is that the Respondent’s name is not mentioned as supplier of the material in the certificates. But since it is not denied that the Respondent have supplied the material to the persons mentioned in the certificates and there is no allegation of diversion of the material supplied for any other purpose, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. (2005 (3) TMI 243 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), the benefit of the exemption cannot be denied. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order - De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Asian Development Bank Financed Projects, the Respondent were not eligible for duty clearance of the goods under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. It is on this basis that after issue of Show Cause Notice, the Jurisdictional Additional Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order-in-Original, dated 31-3-2005 confirmed a total duty demand of ₹ 48,38,972/- against the respondent along with interest thereon under Section 11AB and besides this, imposed penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- on the Respondent under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the same was allowed vide Order-in-Appeal, dated 1-8-2005 was allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard relied upon the judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad.), has decided this issue in favour of the Respondent, that in this judgment Hon'ble Madras High Court has agreed with Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in case of Toyo Engineering India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 315 (Tri.-LB.), and that in view of this, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The Respondent had supplied mild steel CTD bars for use in certain projects financed by Asian Development Bank and being implemented by Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project, Jaipur. There is no dispute that the necessary certificates as per the requirement of the exemption Notification c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
