9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. : for the Appellant M.B. Bal, JDR : for the Respondent ORDER S.S. Kang, Vice President:- 1. Heard both sides. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of IC Engine. The IC Engine was cleared to Indian Navy by availing the benefit of Notification No. 64/95-CE dated, 16th March, 1995. A Show Cause Notice was issued for denial of the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom payment of Central Excise duty. The contention is that the Appellant M/s. Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. is having factories at Ranchi for the manufacture of IC Engines and the factory at Kolkata for ship building. Appellant received Order from the Indian Navy for supply of Two IC Engines-one IC Engine was supplied directly to the Indian Navy by availing the benefit of Notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ship stores, the benefit cannot be denied. 5. The contention of Revenue is that as the IC Engine was not directly supplied by the Ranchi factory to the Indian Navy but same cleared to Kolkata factory and thereafter the same has been supplied to Indian Navy. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Leader Engineering Works v. Commr. of Central Excise, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eader Engineering Works (supra). In the case of Leader Engineering Works relied upon by Revenue, the goods were supplied to the Ship Builders and the Order for supply of the goods were made by the ship builders on behalf of Indian Navy. The benefit of Notification was denied on the ground that the goods in question were not supplied to the Indian Navy and were actually supplied to the ship builder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
