9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... because the institution to whom the appellant has supplied the goods is a public sector institution and they have also furnished the requisite and they are not engaged in any commercial activity and the said goods are required for research purposes. - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/1759/05- Mum - Final Order No. A/86654/2016-WZB/EB - Dated:- 8-3-2016 - SHRI S.S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri K.K. Shroff, Advocate with Shri Vipul Bidre, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri V.K. Shastri, AC (AR) ORDER PER: S.S. GARG: The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/090/05 dated 25.02.2005 of the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice by denying the benefit of Notification 10/97. Thereafter the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)who vide order dated 25.02.2005 upheld the Order-in-Original and denied the exemption to the appellant. Now the appellant has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the nature of modification carried out as the result of research and development activities by the customer at their end. He further submitted that the appellant redesigned the air conditioning system to meet the requirement of the customer. The appellant carried out the following modification to suit the requirement of the customer:- i) Stren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired strength and rigidity. xii) Besides these major changes, many other changes were incorporated to strengthen the unit and improve the performance to meet tests as per military standard. 4. He also submitted that the ld. Commissioner had failed to appreciate letter dated 21.02.1999 received from the CQAE, Controller of Quality Assurance Engineering Equipment which indicates that the original AC systems had failed the approval tests and had to be re-engineered to meet the Defence requirements. He also submitted that the respondent had failed to appreciate that the standard products failed and the AC systems had to be redesigned for the specialised operations more suited for the defence forces. He also submitted that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant has complied with the conditions for claiming the exemption or not. 7. We find that the Senior stores officer has issued a communication dated 09.11.2001 to the Commissioner of Central Excise justifying the entitlement of the appellant for claiming the exemption and he has also explained in the said letter that the AC system which was purchased from the appellant were required for unique design and technical specification on temperature, humidity, air flow which is the specific requirement of the DRDO. Further, we find that the excise duty exemption certificate issued to the appellant was signed by the major General, who is the Director of VRDE and who is of the designation of the Jt. Secretary, Government of India whereas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... collaborator and it was modified to suit the requirement of Ministry of Defence. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant are entitled for the exemption under Notification 10/97 dated 01.03.1997 because the institution to whom the appellant has supplied the goods is a public sector institution and they have also furnished the requisite and they are not engaged in any commercial activity and the said goods are required for research purposes. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is fully covered by the decision cited above and therefore, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
