9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants are engaged in the manufacture of various excisable goods, viz., parts of aircrafts and helicopters, instrumental landing systems and direction finding equipments, during the relevant period, supplied to M/s. Hindustan Aeronautical Laboratories (hereinafter referred to as HAL) in terms of Notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 or other identical relevant notifications for different periods. The goods supplied by M/s. HAL to defence were exempted from payment of duty, in terms of the said notifications. Inasmuch as the goods manufactured by the appellant, which were cleared to M/s. HAL, were further supplied to defence, the same were being cleared by the appellant without payment of duty, in terms of the notifications in question an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the availability of the said notification or the other identical notifications to the vendors of the specified manufacturers in the notification. He submits that earlier Board had issued a clarification that the benefit of the notification would be available to the vendors of the specified manufacturers in the notification including HAL. By taking note of the said clarifications, the Tribunal in number of cases has set aside the demands created against the vendors. However learned advocate fairly agrees that subsequently the said clarifications were withdrawn and it was observed by the Board that the benefit in terms of the said notification can only be given to the specified manufacturers. He also fairly agrees that there are adverse decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication No. 10/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 required a certificate to be produced duly signed by Deputy Secretary of the concerned Ministry, whereas the certificates produced by the appellants are issued by CSIO and Aeronautic Development Agency, and cannot be held to be proper certificate. Similarly in term of Notification No. 06/2006, he submits that the benefit is available only when the goods manufactured by the manufacturer is supplied to M/s. HAL for servicing, repair or maintenance and not for further use in the manufacture of their product. As M/s. HAL has used it for further manufacture, he submits, that inasmuch as the conditions of the said notification have not been fulfilled, the benefit cannot be extended to the appellant. 8. We f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s seen from the certificate, the person signing the same is holding the rank in pay scale higher than the Deputy Secretary to Government of India in which case even though the certificates were not signed by Deputy Secretary, the same should be accepted. Further the Superintendent in his letter dated 28.10.2013 has also verified the said certificates and has reported that the same appears to be adequate. 10. In view of the foregoing, demand cannot be held sustainable on the point of limitation itself. As regards the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006-CE learned advocate submits that they are not aware as to whether M/s. HAL would use the goods for repair, maintenance or for further manufacture of the goods. On being informed by M/s. HAL an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
