9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der in Appeal No. 101/2000, dated 17-10-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- The appellants cleared Polyols, an excisable commodity manufactured by them to M/s. Inalsa Limited without payment of duty under Notification No. 108/95, dated 28-8-95 during the period from 3-8-96 to 22-12-97. M/s. Inalsa Ltd., in turn, used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Revenue. 3. Ld. Counsel submitted Notification No. 108/95 exempts the goods which are supplied to the project financed by the UNICEF. He said that the benefit is denied to them on the ground that they have not supplied the goods directly to the UNICEF project. Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pondicheny [2005 (185) E.L.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e supplied on the basis of an advance intermediate license. The appellants company had given copy of the special imprest license issued to M/s. Inalsa to the department. M/s. Inalsa had supplied the products as deemed export to the UNICEF and have completed all supplies for export of the products. Therefore, the benefit of Notification No. 49/94 also would be available to them. But the Assistant C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods have been sent to M/s. Inalsa who in turn manufactured the vaccine carriers and supplied to the UNICEF is not in dispute. There is no strong reason for denying the benefit of Notification No. 108/95 to the Appellants. The case law relied on by ld. Counsel holds that the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied on the ground that the goods were not directly supplied to the Project Implemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
