Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 690 - AT - Central ExciseAvailment of wrongful benefits under the Central Excise Notification - Appellant is a sub– contractor of ONGC or not - goods cleared under International Competitive Bidding - invoking condition no. 41 c (iv) of the Customs Notification No. 12/2012 – Customs dated 17.03.2012. to deny the Appellant exemption availed under Central Excise Notification - Appellant has not furnished an affidavit to the effect that they are the bonafide sub – contractors of ONGC - HELD THAT:- The demand has been raised by the Department asserting that the Appellant has not furnished an affidavit to the effect that they are the bonafide sub – contractors of ONGC. It is pertinent to note here that the condition for claiming exemption under the said notification corresponds to the requirement of the goods being eligible for exemption and the furnishing of such documents in support of the claims by the importers whereas in the present case the Appellants are domestic suppliers and as regards the goods being eligible for exemption there exists no dispute to the fact by the Department. The said issue under similar circumstances has been settled by the Hon’ble Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of KENT INTROL PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2014 (2) TMI 633 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has held that So long as the goods are exempt, the condition to be satisfied by the domestic suppliers is that they should be supplied under International Competitive Bidding which the appellant has fulfilled in these appeals. Therefore, we have to uphold the contention of the appellant and reject the contention of the Revenue. In view of the above judgment, in the present case being similar issue and facts involved that of above judgment, the Appellant are eligible for exemption under Central Excise Notification under Notification No. 12/2012 – CE upon fulfilling all conditions stipulated therein, thus sufficiently establishing that the goods dealt with by the Appellants qualify for exemption - it is found that the department’s allegation that the Appellant has wrongfully availed exemption has no basis as demand has been confirmed demand on an insignificant issue as domestic manufacturers cannot be expected to comply with such conditions that are required to be imposed on importers. Therefore, the appeal succeeds on merits. The impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed.
|