9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, Rajasthan as mentioned in purchase order dated 25.3.2009 issued by L T. We also find that the LOI and PO were addressed to IGP s HO, it was only the PAC which mentioned the unit situated at Kottivakkam. The said PAC has subsequently been amended to rectify and the reflect the actual clearances made to the same project. Annexure I to the split PAC s Nos. 188 189 certified by the main contractor also mentions the LOI/PO number and date. When the goods have been found to have been cleared towards the power project under International Competitive Bidding which was eligible for duty exemption, the LOI and PO for the supply were addressed to IGP s HO and there is no allegation of clandestine clearance etc, duty exemption benefit cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e IGP unit situated at Kottivakkam and not to the appellant unit, which is situated at Sembakkam. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority vide Order in Original held that claim of exemption was erroneous and demanded Rs.1,37,187/- as central excise duties on clearances made during April 2009, along with interest and imposed a penalty equal to duty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order held that in the absence of PAC prior to the date of clearance and in the absence of any reference in the invoice of the appellant to contract dated 12.3.2008 awarded under ICB to L T, the impugned goods were not eligible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant unit at Sembakkam on payment of duty for further operations. The Sembakkam unit processed the said gaskets and cleared the same to M/s. L T by availing the benefit of exemption under Notification 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 against the above said PAC. He has submitted a chart showing the dates and events, which are reproduced below. Sl. No Date Documents Document Reference Number 1 25.02.2009 Letter of Intent issued from L T to IGP s head office for 36,554 Nos. of gaskets. LIO No. CHEM US/45000-57146/KPS 2 25.03.2009 Purchase Order from L T issued from L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts. This being the case, the exemption availed by the appellant cannot be questioned or denied for the mere reason that the PAC was in the name of Kottivakkam unit and not in the name of Sembakkam unit on the date of clearance of the impugned goods from Sembakkam unit. He hence prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 3.2 We have Shri N. Sathyanarayanan learned AR on behalf of Revenue. He stated that the system of allowing exemption based on PAC issued by the Project Authority is to ensure that the exemption is not misused by unscrupulous elements and since the payment of duty has to be on the date of clearance of goods, the PAC issued should predate the clearance. Further although the appellant has al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the unit situated at Kottivakkam. The said PAC has subsequently been amended to rectify and the reflect the actual clearances made to the same project. Annexure I to the split PAC s Nos. 188 189 certified by the main contractor also mentions the LOI/PO number and date. Revenue was of the view that the system of allowing exemption based on PAC issued by the project authority is to ensure that the exemption has not been mis-used by unscrupulous elements and as the payment of duty has to be as on the date of clearance of goods, the PAC issued should predate the clearance. While this is correct, the appellant has mentioned the split in supply of gaskets to be caused by operational conveniences, which is not unusual in business dealings. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
