9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue is involved in the present case. Accordingly, the ld.D.R. for the Revenue, prays for out-of turn hearing of the appeal. In view of the above, the Misc.Application for early hearing is allowed. We find that the present matter lies in a narrow compass and the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both sides. 2. The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in- Original No.12-17/Commr./CE/Kol.III/2016-17 dated 08.11.2016. 3. The respondent is a manufacturer of Ductile Iron Spun Pipes and other types of Pipes falling under Chapter 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute in the present case revolves around clearance made by the Respondent during the period 2006-2007 to Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the goods dispatched were covered by PAC duly countersigned by the Principal Secretary to the State Government as required under the Notification. He submitted that the benefit of Notification cannot be denied only for the reason that the goods have been dispatched to the contractors engaged by PIA and not to the Implementing Authority itself. In this regard, he relied on the various case laws, in which identical question has been considered and settled in favour of the assessee. In particular, he referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of H.Sarkar & Company Vs. CCEx., Kol.II reported in 2008 (226) ELT 119 (Tri.-Kolkata) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case CCEx., Pondicherry Vs. Cate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tilized the impugned goods for the specified project." 4.4.2 I also rely on Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry, [2005 (185) E.L.T. 430 (Tri.-Del.)], [2013 (297) E.L.T. 8 (Mad.)]. One of the substantial questions of law answered by the Hon'ble High Court in the said case, which has a direct bearing on the instant issue, was as under. Whether or not the impugned goods supplied to the individual contractors executing the "Project" qualify as supplies to the Project to avail exemption under Notification No. 108/95 The Hon'ble High Court answered the above question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by holding in para 8 as under:- "8. We do not find any justifiable ground to interf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (335) E.L.T. A27 (S.C)] The above view has also been affirmed in IBM India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2008 (223) ELT 429 (T) and 2016 (335) ELT 211 (Mad.). 4.5 In this regard, I also draw support from the clarification issued vide D.O.F. No. 334/8/2016-TRU dated 29.02.2016, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Tax Research Unit (TRU).: "Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28th August, 1995 provides full exemption from excise duty to goods supplied to the projects financed by the UN or an international organization and approved by the Government of India subject to certification by the authorities concerned that the said goods are required for the execution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
