9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme has been announced by the Government with the aim to supply nutritional food supplements to Children, Pregnant and Lactating women free of cost, through women cooperative societies. As the societies do not have sufficient infrastructure for processing of Ragi malt, the processing and supply of BCPM was envisaged through a Private Enterprise and the Appellant Assessee was awarded the contract for the supply of BCPM to WCS and also to ensure qualitative supply of the nutritional food supplement from WCS to the weaker sections of the society. From the above, it emerges that BCPM was never considered as a separate product. But, in the scheme formulated to supply the nutritional supplement primarily through the women cooperative Societies, BCPM being an integral part of the scheme, it has been supplied after being added with roasted wheat flour at WCS, in the name of CWF to the beneficiaries. Effectively, only one final product namely CWF has been supplied under the ICDS scheme either by the Appellant Assessee directly or through the WCS as mandated by ICDS. There is no dispute regarding the eligibility of the exemption notification to the product CWF. Since, the Department has deni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to BCPM. The Adjudicating Authority has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Harichand Shri Gopal [ 2010 (11) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein it was held that in order to avail any condition-based exemption, the condition specified in the said notification has to be fulfilled. In the present case the Appellant Assessee has fulfilled all the conditions as stipulated in the Notification No. 12/2012. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has imported the word directly into the notification and arrived at a conclusion that the benefit of the notification would be available only if the food preparations are directly supplied for the intended purpose. We observe that the Notification only envisages that BCPM, in this case, has to be supplied for the beneficiaries of the ICDS scheme - the Appellant Assessee has fulfilled the conditions of the Notification 12/2012-CE to avail the benefit of the said exemption notification. Accordingly, it is found that the above said decision relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order is not relevant to this case. It is an admitted fact that the Respondent Assessee paid VAT on the sale of BCPM. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oking extended period of limitation is not sustainable and accordingly is ordered to be set aside on the ground of limitation. The demand of Central Excise duty along with interest and penalty confirmed in the impugned order is set aside. The dropping of demand of Service Tax by the Adjudicating Authority is upheld - the appeal filed by the Appellant Assessee is allowed on merits as well as on limitation. - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Assessee : Shri N. Prasad, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri M. Ambe, Deputy Commissioner / A.R. ORDER Excise appeal No. E/40118/2023 has been filed by M/s. Christy Friedgram Industries, Namakkal (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant Assessee ) assailing the Order-in-Original No. 78/2022 dated 28.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Salem, wherein the demand of Excise duty has been confirmed along with interest and penalty. Another appeal No. ST/40150/2023 has been filed by the Commissioner of GST Central Excise against the same Order-in-Original No. 78/2022 dated 28.12.2022 for dropping the demand of Service Tax proposed in the Show Cause Notice No. 03/2021- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed Materials packed in 50kg HDPE sacks supplied to WCS which, in turn, used the same in the manufacture of Complementary Weaning Food, were supplied to Anganwadis for free distribution to the economically weaker section beneficiaries. To avail the benefit of the exemption notification, the Appellant Assessee has to fulfill the condition No.5 specified in the said notification. As per condition No. 5, the Appellant Assessee has to produce a Certificate issued by the competent authority, i.e, the Mission Director, above the rank of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, to the effect that CWF purchased directly from the Appellant Assessee in 1kg and 2kg bags and the BCPM sold to the WCS which were in turn used in the manufacture of CWF and packed in 1kg and 2kg bags by the WCS, has been freely distributed to the economically weaker sections of the Society. The Appellant Assessee claimed that they have fulfilled the condition No. 5 stipulated in the impugned notification during the impugned period from July 2016 to June 2017, as they have submitted the said Certificate from the competent authority in respect of both the products manufactured by them. Accordingly, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction IV of Schedule to Tariff Act, 1985 which includes Chapter 19. The BCPM manufactured and cleared by the Appellant Assessee has been used in the manufacture of Complementary Weaning Food which was distributed to the economically weaker sections of the Society free of cost. The ICDS programme has been duly approved by the Central Government and implemented by the State Government. The only ground for which the Adjudicating Authority has denied the benefit of the exemption notification to the goods BCPM was that it was not supplied directly to Anganwadis for free distribution as in the case of CWF manufactured by WCS. It was submitted that the Adjudicating Authority failed to take into account the fact that the competent Authority has issued a certificate to the effect that BCPM purchased from the Appellant Assessee has been used in the preparation of CWF which was packed in 1kg and 2kg bags and distributed to the beneficiaries under the ICDS scheme. Thus, the Appellant Assessee contented that they have fulfilled all the conditions required to avail the exemption as provided in the Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. 3. The Ld. counsel Shri N. Prasad has explained in de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amylase activity. 25 co- operative societies were created to manufacture and supply Complementary Weaning foods to encourage cooperative movement as well as to empower the women of that locality by engaging them in manufacturing activity. The WCS started manufacturing CWF and sold to ICDS, the Department of Government of Tamilnadu and given delivery to Anganwadis, the ultimate limb of Government of Tamilnadu, for free distribution among the beneficiaries. 4.2 When the samples of Complementary Weaning Food supplied by WCS drawn at random were subjected to qualitative tests, 192 samples out of 224 samples were found qualitatively defective and only 32 samples have passed the qualitative test. A writ petition was filed before the Hon ble Madras High Court in the year 2004 (W.P.No. 13740 of 2004) seeking direction to evaluate, formulate and implement the scheme under the supervision of Director, Defence Food Research Laboratory, Mysore to ensure supply of qualitative CWF. As the respondent, the Project Director, ICDS, constituted a committee comprising of Experts having technical expertise in Nutritional Food, Public Health and Preventive Medicine and the opinion of the Expert Committe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e increased. Moreover, the penalty, if any, on the supplies made can also be totally avoided as per the mechanism. iii. The Blend of critical processed materials shall consist of Ragi Malt Flour, roasted maize flour, roasted B.G. Dhal Flour, Jaggery and Vitamin Premix for composition No.1. iv. By blending 42% of the roasted wheat flour as processed by the societies with 58% of the outsourced blend of critical processed materials. v. The qualified competent Enterprises, which is to supply the blend of critical processed materials, shall be entrusted with the responsibility to monitor the production process. vi. Responsibility for maintaining the quality of the final product shall be entrusted with the qualified competent Enterprise, since the raw materials and production process will determine the final nutritive quality. The specifications for BCPM CWF prescribed by the Expert committee are furnished below:- TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION FOR BCPM Sl. No. Blend of Critical Processed Materials containing amylase Activity Formulation Ingredients For 100 Kgs 1 Wheat Flour 6.00 2 Roasted Ragi Flour 10.50 3 Fortified Palm Oil 8.70 4 Malted Ragi Flour 8.50 5 Full Fat Soya Flour 18.00 6 Jaggery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... schedule given by ICDS from time to time. As per the advice of the Expert Committee, WCS mixed the BCPM with the roasted wheat flour manufactured by them in the ratio of 58: 42 resulting in the manufacture of the product called CWF, which was packed in 1kg and 2kg bags, sold to ICDS by supplying to Anganwadi centers, as directed by ICDS, for free distribution to the beneficiaries. It was also argued that BCPM having essential nutritional ingredients viz. malted Ragi and Vitamin premix contributed the amylase activity and micronutrients and the addition of roasted wheat flour with the BCPM does not transform into a new product with new character and quality but for identification by different name CWF assigned by the ICDS. It was also stated that no BCPM would come into existence as a separate product during the course of manufacture of CWF and sold to ICDS by the Appellant Assessee under a separate contract/agreement. BCPM has been introduced as a new product by the Expert Committee. Hence BCPM shall be considered as food preparation packed in unit container and intended for free distribution to the beneficiaries through WCS and Anganwadi Centers. The Appellant Assessee had also s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. In this case, the LSHS/FS was, in fact, used as a fuel for the generation of steam, which was an integral part of the process of manufacture of Ammonia, which was further used in the manufacture of fertilizers. Even though the LSHS/FO was not directly used in the manufacture of fertilzers , it was held that the said products are entitled for the benefit of exemption as the steam generated has been ultimately used in the manufacture of fertilizers. The observation of the Hon ble High Court in para28 of the order is reproduced below:- 28 . I, therefore, hold that the petitioner is right in submitting that under the subject notification, the L.S.H.S/F.O. which is used for the purpose of generation of steam qualify as 'feed stock' in the manufacture of fertilizer and therefore qualify for total exemption. The generation of steam is so integrally related to the ultimate manufacture of fertilizer that it must be held to be a necessary part of the manufacturing process. The mere fact that in the process, L.S.H.S/F.O. gets burnt up, is of no significance, as long as the generation of steam for which it is utilised, is an essential part of the process of manufacture. I also hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e meeting. It was proposed to reduce the rate of GST for the said goods from 18% to 5%, wherein some members urged the government to bring down the rate to Nil, as it is meant for weaker sections of the society. The Secretary explained that the reduction of rate to 5% allowing ITC would be beneficial to the assessees who supply such food preparation to weaker sections. The excerpts of the Minutes in para 28 are reproduced below to emphasise the objective of the scheme and to drive home the point that the intention of the government was to exempt the product BCPM also, as the food preparation BCPM in question is also supplied free of cost ultimately to the poor children. 9.1 The relevant portion of 22nd GST Council Meeting held on 06.10.2017:- 28. Introducing this agenda item, the Joint Secretary (TRU-1), CBEC, stated that during the 21st Meeting of the Council held on 9 September, 2017, the Council had requested the Fitment Committee to examine two issues - nutritious diet (pusthaahar) distributed under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) and all goods falling under Heading 6802(other than those of marble and granite or those which attract 12% rate of tax) afresh. He sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant Assessee contended that the GST Council intended to reduce the GST rate from 18% to 5% subject to fulfilment of certain conditions as these products were meant for the weaker sections of the society. The Secretary pointed out that it would be desirable to keep tax at the rate of 5% because there would be tax on inputs like ghee, transport, rent, etc. which could be used for paying tax at the rate of 5%. The suggestion of the secretary was to encourage the manufacturer to avail the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to be used against the payment of GST @5% on outward supply. When ITC was allowed to be used, the cost of the food preparation shall not go up. Thus, the Appellant Assessee submits that the intention of the government was to exempt the food preparation whether it is CWF or BCPM, as both the products are ultimately supplied to the weaker sections of the society. By narrowly interpreting the notification, the very purpose of the notification has been defeated. 10.1 The Ld. counsel has submitted that the Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, Secretariat, Chennai vide Letter No. 14077/SW7(1)/2020-3 dated 17.02.2021 communicated the clarification iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already availed the benefit of exemption provided under Notification No. 12/2012, in the capacity of a manufacturer, the Appellant Assessee being the manufacturer of input/intermediate products namely, BCPM would not be entitled to avail the benefit of the exemption Notification. The Ld. DR also contended that the decisions quoted by the Appellant Assessee are not relevant to the issue in dispute. 12. We heard the arguments and the contentions of both the sides and perused the documents, decisions of various Courts and Tribunals placed before us. 13. From the submissions of the Ld. counsel for the Appellant Assessee, it is evident that the Central Government have sponsored a scheme under Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) for supplying nutritional food supplements to Children, Pregnant and Lactating women free of cost. The Government of Tamilnadu implemented the scheme formulating the technical specifications for food supplements with the name Complementary Weaning Food (CWF) containing amylase activity. Tamilnadu Government had floated 25 women Co-Operative Societies for the manufacture and supply of CWF to the beneficiaries. For implementing the scheme, Department of ICD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uct CWF. Since, the Department has denied the benefit of exemption provided in Notification No. 12/2012 only to the product BCPM, we will confine our discussion only on the availability of the said exemption to BCPM. Now, coming to the eligibility of the exemption provided under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 to the product BCPM, we observe that the benefit of the Notification No. 12/2012 has been extended to the product CWF, as the same has been manufactured and sold by the Appellant Assessee directly to the Anganwadis, the limb of ICDS Department. The Department denied the exemption to the intermediate product BCPM manufactured and sold by the Appellant Assessee to the ICDS and given delivery to WCS, because the said product has not been supplied directly to Anganwadis for free distribution to the Societies. Thus, the main issue to be examined here is whether the product BCPM manufactured by the Appellant Assessee and supplied to the WCS is entitled for the exemption contained in the Notification No. 12/2012. Relevant portion of the Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012:- Sl. No. Tariff item, sub-heading, heading or Chapter Description of Goods Condition (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry to analyze the specifications of BCPM and compare it with the specifications of CWF. The specifications of both BCPM and CWF as suggested by the Expert Committee and contained in the G.O. (Ms) No. 146 dated 16.10.2006, issued by Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW-7) Department, are reproduced below:- a . TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION FOR BCPM CWF Sl. No. Blend of Critical Processed Materials containing amylase Activity Formulation Ingredients For 100 Kgs 1 Wheat Flour 6.00 2 Roasted Ragi Flour 10.50 3 Fortified Palm Oil 8.70 4 Malted Ragi Flour 8.50 5 Full Fat Soya Flour 18.00 6 Jaggery 46.50 7 Minerals(Iron, Calcium) and Vitamins Pre- mix (Vitamin A C, Thiamine, Riboflavin, Niacin, Folic Acid) 1.80 b. Complementary Weaning Food would contain the following contents :- Roasted wheat flour : 42% and Blend of Critical Processed Materials : 58% 14.4 From the above, we observe that CWF is the product intended to be supplied to the beneficiaries under the ICDS scheme. BCPM, as a separate product would not ordinarily come into existence during the course of manufacture of CWF. BCPM, as a separate product, has been introduced only by the Expert Committee suggesting the Technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Tamilnadu, had floated tenders for supply of CWF and BCPM. Being the successful bidder, the Appellant Assessee who has been manufacturing and supplying CWF exclusively to ICDS for the past 15 years, has been given the contract for manufacture of BCPM and sold to ICDS, but supplied through WCS. The WCS has added roasted wheat flour and prepared CWF and packed the same in 1kg and 2 kg bags and supplied to ICDS. The CWF packed in 1kg and 2kg bags were delivered to the Anganwadis, the limb of ICDS, which distributed the same to the beneficiaries. We observe that when the Department has agreed that the CWF manufactured by the Appellant Assessee are food preparations entitled for the benefit of exemption under the impugned Notification, there is no reason to deny the benefit of the exemption for the same food preparation (BCPM) supplied through the WCS. The only ground under which the benefit of the exemption notification was denied to BCPM manufactured by the Appellant Assessee is that the same has not been directly supplied to the ICDS. But, we observe that there is no such stipulation in the notification that the benefit would be applicable only if the food preparations are directl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 is not in consonance with the legislative intent and the objective of the impugned Notification. We observe that the legislative intent has always been to exempt both the products CWF and BCPM as both were meant for free distribution to the beneficiaries under the ICDS scheme. Thus, we observe that unless BCPM is construed to be supplied for free distribution to the beneficiaries under the ICDS scheme, the legislative intent of free supply of nutritional food supplement to weaker sections under a scheme introduced by the Central Government or State Government would get defeated and the very purpose of issuance of such a notification exempting the product would also fail. As the BCPM manufactured and cleared by the Appellant Assessee has been ultimately consumed by the intended beneficiaries, we hold that the reasoning given by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order to deny the exemption to the said product is legally not sustainable. 15.3 A perusal of the specifications and the constituent materials for manufacture of BCPM furnished by the Expert Committee would reveal that the combination of the ingredients would make it a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee, sold to ICDS and delivered to WCS for manufacture of CWF, fulfils the conditions stipulated to avail the benefit of the Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. 16.1 In the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of central excise duty on the ground that the BCPM manufactured and supplied to WCS are not intended for distribution to the beneficiaries of the ICDS scheme, as they were not supplied directly to the Anganwadis. The Appeallant Assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited reported in [2009 (236) E.L.T. 633 (Raj)] in support of his contention that the benefit of the notification cannot be denied even if the goods are not supplied directly to the intended beneficiary. We find that the decision supports the contention of the Appellant and it is squarely applicable to the present case. In the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd, the assessee claimed the benefit of the Notification No. 81/1975-CE dated 22-03-1975, which is available to sulphuric acid used in the manufacture of fertilizers . The assessee in that case manufactured sulphuric acid and captively consumed the same in the manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this case the exemption was available to fuel used in the manufacture of fertiliser . However, the exemption was allowed even when the fuel was first used in the manufacture of Steam and Ammonia which in turn was used in the manufacture of Fertilizer . The essence of these decisions is that the benefit of the notification cannot be denied even if the goods have not been used directly in the final product. As long as the goods are ultimately used for the intended purpose for which the exemption has been granted, the benefit of the exemption cannot be denied. 18. We also observe that the Commercial Tax Department has issued a clarification to the effect that BCPM is in the supply chain of the scheme and was intended for free distribution as mentioned under Clause 36(2)(v) of the Tender Document and the benefit of the Notification is applicable to BCPM. The same view is relevant for extending the benefit of the Notification to BCPM under Central Excise Act also. As the BCPM manufactured by the Appellant Assessee is intended for free distribution under the ICDS scheme and it was ultimately consumed by the beneficiaries, as evidenced by the certificates issued by the competent authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y referred above is not applicable in this case as there is no ambiguity in interpretation of the Notification in this case. The term intended for available in the Notification has been interpreted in various judgements/decisions. The Appellant has fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the Notification and has rightly claimed the benefit of the exemption notification. The wordings in a Notification should not be interpreted in a way to defeat the aim or intent of the Notification. In the present case the intention of the Government is to exempt the food preparations intended for supply to the weaker section beneficiaries under the ICDS scheme. The Appellant Assessee produced the certificate to the effect that the BCPM supplied by them has been ultimately distributed to the weaker sections as intended in the notification. Thus, any other interpretation of the notification would only defeat the basic purpose and intention of the Notification. Even otherwise, the Appellant Assessee has sold BCPM to ICDS and BCPM is also a food preparation and as being covered by the terms of Notification and the Certificate issued by the competent authority, exemption from payment of duty cannot be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice activities were included in the said price. When the Respondent Assessee did not furnish the break-up particulars as called for, the Department was constrained to adopt the cost of such activities from the break-up particulars furnished by the Respondent Assessee in the cost-sheet furnished in terms of Clause 9 (2 4) of the tender documents and the taxable value for those activities was thus determined. Therefore, he pleaded that the present appeal filed by the Department may be allowed. He further pleaded that in case the appeal is not sustained, the taxable value on which service tax was originally demanded should be added with the transaction value of BCPM and the excise duty payable thereon shall be added with to demand of excise duty already confirmed and thus render justice. 21.2 We observe that the Adjudicating Authority has dropped the demand of service tax raised in the Notice, as there is no separate consideration received for the services rendered. In their grounds of appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Salem, contended that the Respondent Assessee has provided certain service activities to WCS as mentioned in the scope of work contained in Annexur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttain finality. The final inbuilt price/MT would be arrived at through negotiation by ICDS, which would always be less than that of the tender price. The activities mentioned in the scope of work with Schedule of requirements in Annexure-II to the tender documents are nothing but contractual obligation to be complied with in order to hold the contract for supply of BCPM for the contract period. Therefore, we observe that the Department s adoption of the entire cost under the head Administrative Overheads, technical assistant and fine tune charges as the taxable value for service activities, is totally arbitrary in nature and cannot be legally supported. 21.5 It is to be noted that there was no separate contract entered with the WCS for the provision of service. The activities mentioned under the scope of work with Schedule of requirements as mentioned in Annexure-II to the tender document No. 15988/NC1(2)/2015 dated 01.02.2016, is only to facilitate the WCS and help them in ensuring the quality of the product. Regarding the taxable value for the service, we observe that no separate invoice was raised towards the consideration for the services rendered. The price quoted in the tende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, we do not accept the contention of the Department that the costs for Administrative Over heads, Fine Tuning charges can be adopted as the taxable value for the alleged standalone service activities. Further clause 9(3) specifically states that data given in the cost sheet furnished under clause 9(2 4) was for the limited purpose of comparing the bidding prices of competitors. 21.8 It is an admitted fact that the Respondent Assessee paid VAT on the sale of BCPM. In view of the VAT payment, the Department took the view that BCPM is different from CWF. We observe that when BCPM was sold to ICDS and delivered to the WCS, there was a transfer of title against the consideration and VAT was paid. This VAT payment has no relevance to the provision of service rendered to the WCS, as the definition for Service excludes the transfer of title of goods as clarified in Paragraph 2.6.4 of the Education Guide issued by CBEC. Therefore, levy of service tax is not permissible on the value of goods on which VAT has already been paid. 21.9 In the above circumstances, we observe that the Lower Authority has rightly relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of BSNL report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, except alleging misclassification of BCPM under tariff item No. 19011090, instead of classification made by the Department under tariff item No. 19019090. 22.3 The Appellant Assessee submits that classification under Tariff Heading No. 19019090 as contended by the Department did not have any adverse impact on availing the benefit of the exemption as the chapter heading No.1901 alone was finding place in the exemption Notification No. 12/2012, which covered all the tariff items thereunder. Therefore, the invocation of extended period of demand under Section 11A (4) is not sustainable. They contended that the Adjudicating Authority did not consider these submissions and denied the benefit of the exemption contained in the Notification No. 12/2012 only on the basis of misinterpretation of the term intended for figuring in the notification. In the impugned order, it has been held that the BCPM has not been supplied directly to the beneficiaries and hence the benefit of the exemption cannot be extended. There is no other ground raised in the impugned order for invoking the extended period of limitation. 22.4 We observe that the Appellant Assessee submitted ER-1 Monthly returns peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... food preparations in unit containers. (iii) The terms printed on the 50 kg bags reveals that BCPM is intended for free distribution and cannot be sold, as the terms Not for sale are printed thereon. (iv) The BCPM has been used in the manufacture of CWF by WCS and packed in 1kg and 2 kg bags, and sold for free distribution. Thus, the Appellant Assessee fulfilled the condition intended for free distribution to economically weaker sections of the society under a program duly approved by the Central Government or any State Government , as stipulated in the Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. (v) The Appellant Assessee has produced the required certificate from an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India or not below the rank of the Deputy Secretary to the State Government concerned to the effect that such food preparations have been distributed free to the economically weaker sections of the society under a programme duly approved by the Central Government or the State Government concerned, as stipulated in condition no. 5 of the Notification No. 12/2012-CE. (vi) The BCPM manufactured and sold to ICDS, but delivered to the WCS are intende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
