9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to have been in MOP or no substantive argument for ANS has purchased the material from the present appellant. He might have been in a position to make out the case. Nothing is shown to us to establish that. Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Asian Development Bank or any international organisation, other than those listed in the Page 2 of 5 Annexure, and [Above (c)] has been amended vide Cen. Exc. NTF. 40/99 dated 2-11-99)] (i) if the said project has been approved by the Government of India, a certificate from the executive head of the Project Implementing Authority and countersigned by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, in the concerned Line Ministry in the Government of India, that the said goods are required for the execution of the said project and that the said project has duly been approved by the Government of India, and (ii) if the said project has been approved by the Government of India for implementatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above Package No. UDA/DR/01 under Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project (RUIDP) 1. Reinforcement Steel, Hot rolled deformed 237.8 MT (IS : 1139)/Cold Twisted (IS : 1786) bars We hereby certify that the above material is required for use of Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project (RUIDP) being implemented under Urban Development Department Government of Rajasthan. We further certify that this project Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project (RUIDP) is being financed by Asian Development Bank through loan No. 1647-IND duly approved by Government of India for Urban Infrastructure Development of six major cities of the State of Rajasthan. This certificate is being issued in pursuance of the requireme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee that the original certificate had already been submitted in the divisional office by M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd., Bhlwadi in the year 2004 is not going to help them as it was between M/s. Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd., Bhiwadi and them only. The assessee never informed the divisional office prior to 5-4-2006 that they had cleared the goods by claiming exemption under Notification No. 108/1995-C.E., dated 20-8-1995 on the basis of certificate which had already been produced in the divisional office by M/s. Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd., Bhiwadi. The contention of the assessee that in compliance of letter dated 26-10-2005 of the Range Superintendent, necessary documents and information were submitted in person vide letter dated 8-12-2005 is also not correct a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding as under : 6. "I find that the goods in question were removed in the month of July 2004 and March 2005 while the certificate was provided in the Divisional Office on 28-3-2006 much after the removal of the said goods cleared without payment of duty. The appellant contention is that the original certificate had already been submitted in the Divisional Office by M/s. Kamdhunu Ispat Ltd., Bhiwadi in the year 2004 is not helpful to them. It was concluded between M/s. Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd., Bhiwadi and M/s. ANS Construction Ltd., only. Furthermore, the appellant has not informed to the adjudicating authority prior to 5-4-2006 that they had cleared the goods by claiming exemption under Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduce the required certificate before the Clearance of goods. Therefore, I hold that demand of ₹ 3,32,361/- has rightly been confirmed which is justified." 8. The Tribunal in this regard held as under :- "We find from the available records that the no certificates were produced by the appellants for the goods supplied during the period July 2004 and March 2005 before the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities. Further, the Certificate available in the records reveal that the same are not in the name of the appellant and has been issued in the name of M/s. ANS Construction Ltd. The appellant has not explained as to how the certificate issued in the name of ANS Construction Ltd. Should be considered as proper and valid for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
