9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms as sub-contractor for the project. We find that exemption available to sub-contractors in similar type of notifications was examined in the case of Hy-TUF Steels Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (10) TMI 1382 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD )Madras) as relying on Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (7) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that when the machineries were ultimately put in use by the sub-contractor, who are given the job, the exemption cannot be denied. It was observed that in the absence of allegation of possible mis-use of the goods, for unintended purposes, the beneficial notification issued in public interest cannot be denied. In the present case, we find that the denial of exemption is only on the ground that the appellant s name is not figuring in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them for recovering ₹ 78,598/- towards duty on the said clearances. The Original Authority vide his order dated 17.11.2006 confirmed the demand. 2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order upheld the said original order. The present appeal is against this appellate order. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that during May, 2005, they have cleared the impugned goods and they have submitted a copy of certificate issued by the Dy. Commissioner of District to the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer on 27.04.2005 itself. The appellants submitted the original certificate also on 12.04.2006. The goods were cleared on 4.5.2005. The denial of exemption to the appellant is not sustainable and it was submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame, he submitted that the denial of exemption has to be upheld. 6. We have heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. 7. The only point for decision is whether or not the appellants are right in availing exemption under notification no.3/2004-CE in respect of the consignments cleared by them in the present case. We find that even before the clearance of the impugned goods, the appellants vide their letter dated 27.04.2005 intimated the jurisdictional central excise officer regarding purchase order from M/s.VATECH WABAG Ltd. for supply of cables as sub-contractor for the project, which is exempted in terms of the said notification. They have also enclosed a copy of the exemption certificate issued by the District Authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
