Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1234 - AT - Central ExciseSupplies made to Ministry of Defence by specified organisation - benefit of N/N. 63/1995-CE dated 16th June 1995 (at serial no. 1 and serial no. 2) - HELD THAT:- The eligibility of appellant-company for exemption on goods supplied to M/s Bharat Earth Movers Ltd, which are, in turn, intended for Ministry of Defence is no longer res integra - the issue stands settled by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BENGALURU-V VERSUS M/S. DATASOL INNOVATIVE LABS [2017 (2) TMI 1171 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and that the decision relied upon in the impugned order has since been overruled by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING IND. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE-I, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, STATUTE CIRCLE, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR [2017 (11) TMI 879 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] - demand set aside. Goods required for setting up of ‘water supply plants and pipes’ to deliver water from source to the ultimate storage facility - benefit of N/N. 03/2004-CE dated 8th January 2004 - HELD THAT:- In relation to the exemption intended for water supply plants, the denial arose from the deficiency of the certificate issued by the competent head of the district. The lower authorities have held so in the absence of a substitute certificate for the one that was misplaced by them while shifting their office. However, it is the plea of the Learned Counsel for the appellant that this is not the correct factual position inasmuch as the certificates had been submitted to the appropriate central excise authorities who were unable to trace the same - it is only proper that the original authority makes an effort to recover the said documents and render a finding thereafter on the eligibility thereof. In the absence of such certification, it was inappropriate for the lower authority to come to a conclusion that the appellant-assessee was not eligible for the exemption. Benefit of N/N. 6/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 - parallel provisions in notification no. 21/2002-CE dated 1st March 2002 intended to confer non-discriminatory treatment to goods manufactured in India and to those imported for execution of projects contracted through international competitive bidding - HELD THAT:- It would appear that the lower authorities had not paid due attention to the conditions prescribed and the required level of compliance - matter placed on remand for reconsideration. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|