9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uperintendent/ Assistant Commissioner /Deputy Commissioner of Central excise was wrongly mentioned as Changodhar, Ahmedabad under which the appellant unit does not fall, however, the certificate was issued in favour of the Appellant s Odhav Unit which can be seen from the annexure which is the part of the certificate in column 1 against the name and address of the manufacturer. In the same annexure the name and the address of the project for which goods have been supplied to the project is also mentioned. The said annexure bears the seal and signature of the project i.e. Waa Solar India Pvt Ltd as well as the appellant s Odhav Unit. These details clearly show that the goods were supplied by the appellant s Odhav Unit to the concern project. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No. 15/2010 CE dated 27.02.2010 pursuant to condition (i) of Notification No 15/2010- CE dated 27.02.2010. The appellant had submitted a letter dated 22.10.2010 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division III, Ahmedabad- II enclosing a self-certified copy of certificate No. 24/34/2011-12-PVSE dated 23.08.2011 issued by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, New Delhi. On perusal of the said letter and copy of certificate, it was observed that the said certificate was specifically marked/endorsed to the Superintendent/Assistant Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Range III (AR-1, Changodhar), Sarkhej Highway, Ahmedabad whereas the details of the goods intended to be cleared under the said cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orative evidence such as invoices clearly shows that the goods were supplied by the appellant s Odhav unit to the concerned project i.e. Waa Solar India Pvt Ltd, therefore, the exemption cannot be denied. 3. Shri Ajay Kumar Samota, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that both the lower authorities have denied the exemption on the ground that the appellant have violated the condition of Notification No 15/2010-CE in as much as the address of the Superintendent/ Assistant Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner was wrongly mentioned as Changodhar whereas the good were supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct for which the certificate was issued. Therefore, in our considered view the condition of the notification is clearly fulfilled and the address of the Superintendent/ Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner given in the certificate was inadvertently mentioned. Only on that basis, the fact that the Certificate was indeed issued in favour of the Appellant s Odhav unit for supply of goods by the Odhav unit to the Project Waa Solar India Pvt Ltd I not in dispute. Therefore, merely for the small error in the certificate, the benefit of Notification No 15/210-CE cannot be denied. Therefore, we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed. ( Pronounced in the open cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
