9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period of dispute the appellant supplied certain goods for use as "ship stores" in the ships belonged to the Indian Navy by claiming the benefit of Notification No.64/95 dated 16.03.1995 (Sl.No.3). Department noticed that the goods supplied by the appellant by availing the benefit of the above Notification included goods which were supplied to Indian Navy Vessels which were under construction. The Department was of the view that the benefit of the Notification cannot be extended to the goods supplied to Indian Naval Vessels, which were under construction. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued proposing to deny the benefit to the under construction vessels. The original decision of the jurisdictional Commissioner came up before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which were for using under-construction vessel, the appellant will not be eligible for such benefit. In this connection he brought to our notice the details of certificates already submitted before the adjudicating authority. iii) In respect of the period January - June, 2002, it was submitted that no supply of goods have been made to under-construction vessels. The details of Certificates from Navy supporting the entire supplies have been submitted to the adjudicating authority. iv) Ld. Advocate further submitted that inspite of the certificates furnished by the Indian Navy, the benefit of the Notification has not been allowed to them. He also submitted that the lower Appellate Authority had even denied the benefit of the exemption unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 620 (Tribunal). It has been held by the Tribunal that the benefit under the notification was admissible only if the goods were supplied directly to the Indian Navy as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy and not through the ship builders on a certificate issued by the Indian Navy that the goods supplied by the appellant would be used for the manufacture of the ships. That the certificate issued by the Indian Navy would not be sufficient to extend the benefit of the notification as if the goods are supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel to the Indian Navy. 9. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. The words of the exemption notification are clear and unambiguous. Goods other than cigarettes are ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BTL0061/1682/2000/E-43 dt.29.06.01 CIPRO (M) CA-4363 204 dt. 30.11.01 7316-00 7 38,500.00 -DO- 99VCC0014 dt. 26.10.99 CIPRO (M) CA-4034 TOTAL: 477 930,371.00 For the period January, 2002 to June, 2002 Case No. Excise Invoice & date Tariff Heading Oty. Nos. Value (Rs.) Description Order No. & Dt. CA-4363 240 dt.16.01.02 8481-99 149 288,245.00 Spare parts Components MOPR/ESA/00BTL0061/1682/200 0/E-433 dt. 29.06.01 9. Since the above clearances are duly supported by certificates from Navy, we find no reason to deny the benefit. Accordingly, we allow the benefit of Notification No.64/95 ibid for the clearances as above. 10. For the period April-December, 2001 for clearances m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
