9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overi Ltd., for use of in a project which was financed by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation. In its letter of 20-9-2000 Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. told the appellant that the goods were to be supplied to a project of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and enclosed a copy of the certificate issued by the empowered officer of the project in the electricity board certifying that the project in which the goods were intended to be used being financed by the Japan Bank for International Co-operation explaining that the certificate in question was issued in terms of notification 108/95 and the goods covered by excise duty exemption. The appellant accordingly did not pay any duty on these goods. 3.On 20-12-2000 the appellant wrote to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad suppressed from the department the fact that the Japan Bank for International Co-operation was not an international organisation within the meaning of the notification. The notice also proposed penalty on the appellant and on Rajendra Lalchandani, its Excise Manager. 5.The appellant replied to the notice contending that it had been entirely guided by the empowered official of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board under the bona fide belief that it was entitled to the benefit of the exemption. 6.The Commissioner, who adjudicated the matter, did not accept this contention. He concluded that the benefit of the exemption was not available, since the bank which funded the project has not been recognised under the notification. He furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be available. Therefore, he says the provisions of Sections 11AB and 11AC will not apply. Therefore, the extended period contained in the proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 11A will not be available. He however offers to pay the duty for the period which is beyond the normal period of one year as a gesture of good faith. 8.The departmental representative contends that it was expected of the appellant that it should have clarified that it was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption. 9.We agree that the appellant has not exercised the degree of care that it ought to have in not verifying that the project which supplied the goods was in fact financed by an international organisation as defined in that notification. However, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
