TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that before clearance of the said goods, a certificate from an officer not below the rank of a Rear Admiral of the Indian Navy or of any other officer of the Indian Navy equivalent to the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, to the effect that the said goods are intended for the said use, is produced to the proper officer. This condition has been fulfilled by the assessee by producing the certificate from the competent authority to the Department vide their letter dt. 04/11/2010. Division Bench of this Tribunal in identical facts in the case of GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., CUS. S.T., BANGALORE-I [ 2016 (1) TMI 1138 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has examined whether the assessee is entitled to be benefit of Notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sake of convenience, we take up the assessee s appeal first. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee/appellant is engaged in manufacture of excisable goods such as Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS) and Integrated Bridge System (IBS) equipment falling under Tariff Item No.9023 00 90 and 9032 89 90 respectively of the Schedule to CETA, 1985. These goods are used in building of ships by ship builders. Assessee has supplied these goods to M/s. Garden Reach Shipbuilders Engineers Limited, Kolkata for use in construction of war ships in Indian Navy. It is undisputed fact that M/s. Garden Reach Shipbuilders Engineers Limited are builders of war ships for use by the Indian Navy. A show-cause notice dt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Heard both sides and perused records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the Department has wrongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Leader Engineering Works while issuing the show-cause notice whereas the facts of the present case are entirely different. He further submitted that the decision in Leader Engineering Works case is not applicable to the present case because in that case it was held that exemption to stores for consumptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their letter dt. 04/11/2010 and there is no dispute on this. He also submitted that the wordings in the notification are very clear and it did not stipulate that the goods should be supplied to Indian Navy. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of GE India Industrial Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2016(335) ELT 103 (Tri. Bang.)] wherein it has been held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No.64/95 when they supply the goods for use in the construction of warships of India Navy. He further submitted that for the subsequent period, April 2011 to December 2011, the Commissioner of Central Excise has dro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing to do with goods supplied for construction of war ships. Further we find that this case law relates to the law as existing prior to 11/04/2002. The said notification was amended vide Notification No.24/2002-CE dt. 11/04/2002 and a new Sl.No.21 was introduced wherein it is clearly mentioned that the exemption is applicable to all goods supplied for use in construction of warships of the Indian Navy. Further we find that the only condition stipulated was that before clearance of the said goods, a certificate from an officer not below the rank of a Rear Admiral of the Indian Navy or of any other officer of the Indian Navy equivalent to the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, to the effect that the said goods are intended for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject goods are entitled to the benefit of subject notification namely 64/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995. It is to be noted that Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Leader Engineering Works (supra) on which reliance was placed by AR, was considering the goods which were supplied as stores for consumption on board of ship and they were supplied to ship builders and the entry considered was against Sl. No. 3 of the subject notification. Therefore, the facts in the case of Leader Engineering Works (supra) are definitely different than the facts on record of these appeals. 5. Considering the above discussion, the subject goods of the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 64/95-C.E. (supra). Both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|