TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. Commr(A)/187/VDR-I/2006, dated 31-10-2006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows :- (a) The appellants cleared Bitumen Emulsions and value added Bitumen products to various contractors, who were executing the project funded by the World Bank. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es imposition of penalty. (e) The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority. 4. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that Notification No. 108/95 exempt goods and the condition of production of certificate from the project implementing authority has been satisfied and the department s stand that the certificate should have been issued in the name of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is to be construed strictly and the certificate having been in the name of the contractor, the appellant is not entitled to avail the exemption. He relies on the following judgments :- (i) CCE, Hyd. v. A.P. Paper Mills Ltd. - 2005 (179) E.L.T. 411 (T) (ii) Dee Development Engineers Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-V - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 452 (Tri.-Del.). 6. We have carefully considered the rival ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no rational to issue the certificate in the name of the supplier. Basically, the Notification is a kind of end-use notification and that is meant for use in the work funded by the World Bank. There is also no stipulation in the notifications that the certificate by the project implementing authority should be in the names of suppliers of the materials. 7. The ratio of various judgments relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
