9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... derabad (here-in-after referred to as M/s. APTRANSCO) is a body corporate of Government of Andhra Pradesh and undertook implementation of transmission system projects at Simhadri and Vizag in Andhra Pradesh under finance from Japan Bank for International Cooperation. The appellants were placed with two Purchase Orders by M/s. APTRANSCO for supply of the goods. 3. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 108/95, dated 28-8-95 claimed by the appellants during the period from September, 2000 to September, 2001. The said benefit was denied to the applicants/appellants on the ground that M/s. Japan Bank for International Co-operation is not a notified international organisation, and as such, one of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificates. As such, he has confirmed the demand by invoking the longer period along with confirmation of interest, and has imposed personal penalty of an equivalent amount on M/s. Jyoti. Structures Ltd., the appellant company herein. 6. After having carefully considered the submissions made from both sides, we find that the appellants had availed the benefit of the Notification on the basis of the certificates issued by the Project Implementing Authority. It was only subsequently that vide their letter dated 11-1-2002, it was informed by the Project Implementing Authority that M/s. Japan Bank for International Co-operation were not an notified international organisation and the certificates issued by the Project Implementing Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d penalty imposed upon the appellant in that case. 7. We see no reason to take a different view. The Revenue Authorities also at the relevant time, never examined the status of M/s. Japan Bank of International Co-operation. The appellant company was acting bona fide on the basis of the certificates issued by the Project Implementing Authority and the blame that the appellants should have verified the status of the Financing Organisation, cannot be shifted to them. As such, we are of the view that the demand is hit by the bar of limitation and there is no justification for imposition of penalty upon the appellants, and accordingly, set aside the impugned Order and allow all the appeals with consequential reliefs to the appellants. Stay Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
