Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 227 - AT - Central ExciseExemption under Notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 - Goods supplied to defence - Bar of limitation - Held that:- Apart from Notification No. 63/95-CE, there were other two notifications being Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 and 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006, which required the certificates to be produced by the proper officer. Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 required a certificate to be produced duly signed by Deputy Secretary of the concerned Ministry, whereas the certificates produced by the appellants are issued by CSIO and Aeronautic Development Agency, and cannot be held to be proper certificate. Similarly in term of Notification No. 06/2006, he submits that the benefit is available only when the goods manufactured by the manufacturer is supplied to M/s. HAL for servicing, repair or maintenance and not for further use in the manufacture of their product. As M/s. HAL has used it for further manufacture, he submits, that inasmuch as the conditions of the said notification have not been fulfilled, the benefit cannot be extended to the appellant. As regards Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 is concerned, the Revenue's objection is that the certificate produced by the assessee in terms of the said notifications are not duly signed by the proper officer. However we find that certificates handed over to the appellant duly signed by CSIO or aeronautic development agency and based on which the appellant availed the benefit of notification. Even if the fact that they were not signed by the proper officer is admitted, no suppression or misdeclaration can be attributed to the assessee so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. Apart from that we find, as is seen from the certificate, the person signing the same is holding the rank in pay scale higher than the Deputy Secretary to Government of India in which case even though the certificates were not signed by Deputy Secretary, the same should be accepted. - demand cannot be held sustainable on the point of limitation itself. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
|