2017 (10) TMI 1175 - AT - Central Excise

N/N. 63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 - Revenue entertained a view that since the appellant was not one of the units specified in terms of the said N/N. 63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 the benefit of the Notification which exempted goods supplied to the Ministry of Defence cannot be extended to them - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner Versus Vulcan Gears 2011 (2) TMI 1347 - Supreme Court of India where it was held that notification exempts the goods when they are supplied directly to the Ministry of Defence by the companies named therein and in the notification the appellant s name was not included in the names of the companies - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 regarding exemption for goods supplied to Ministry of Defence.
2. Whether the benefit of the notification extends to vendors and intermediate manufacturers supplying goods to Ministry of Defence.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of brake linings and clutch facings, supplied goods to M/s Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. claiming exemption under Notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995, which exempted goods supplied to the Ministry of Defence. The Revenue contended that since the appellant was not specified in the notification, the exemption could not be extended to them. A show cause notice was issued, leading to confirmation of demand and penalty imposition by the original adjudicating authority, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), resulting in the present appeal.

2. The appellant relied on Tribunal decisions like Sujan Industries, PSG & Son's Charities, and Vulcan Gears, arguing that the notification benefit applies to job workers, vendors, and intermediate manufacturers supplying goods to the Ministry of Defence. The decision in Vulcan Gears was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reinforcing the applicability of the notification to vendors. In contrast, the Revenue cited a Tribunal decision in Turbotech Precision Engg. Pvt. Ltd., where the notification benefit was not extended to vendors or intermediate manufacturers.

3. Upon considering the arguments, the Tribunal noted that decisions relied upon by the appellant directly addressed the issue at hand. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the decision cited by the Revenue did not reference precedent decisions interpreting the same notification favorably for vendors and intermediate manufacturers. Given that the Supreme Court had confirmed the decision in Vulcan Gears, the Tribunal accorded more weight to the Supreme Court's decision, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.