Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 370 - CESTAT BANGALOREWaiver of pre-deposit - Denial of benefit under Notification No. 108/1995-C.E. dated 28.8.1995 - Bar of limitation - Held that:- appellants have been able to make out prima facie case on the ground of limitation - appellant had received the certificate from the project authority as required by the notification; the authoritys certificate clearly mentioned details required and also given the name of contractor to whom the goods were supplied and also the name of the appellant besides indicating necessary details while transfer of project and the intention behind the issue of certificate. After receiving the certificate, as per the records, the appellant submitted project authoritys certificate to the Assistant Commissioner who acknowledged the receipt of certificate and also directed the appellant to give the details of clearance to the jurisdictional Range officer under intimation to him. Thereafter, the appellant cleared the goods under invoice and in the invoice also reference of the Assistant Commissioners letter date has been indicated. There is no finding to the effect that the copies of invoice were not submitted or the directions of the Assistant Commissioner while acknowledging letter has not been followed. What emerges from the facts indicated above is that the procedure as prescribed under Notification No. 108/95 appears to have been followed meticulously. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- Even if it is held that the goods have been supplied only to the project, it is doubtful that such a demand could have been made after three years invoking extended period. When all the facts are within the knowledge of department, it is doubtful whether extended period can be invoked. In any case, it is clarified in Explanation 2 of the notification that when the goods brought into the project are not withdrawn by the supplier or contractor and the expression goods are required for the execution of the projectshall be construed accordingly. This prima facie indicates that the supply could be to the contractor also. In these circumstances, we find invoking extended period for demanding duty prima facie cannot be sustained. In these circumstances, the appellant has made out a prima face case for complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery - Stay granted.
|