TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals), Jaipur, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants against the order passed by the adjudicating authority has been rejected. The adjudicating authority, namely, the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, by his order dated 15th February, 2008 had confirmed the demand of duty and cess totaling to Rs. 22,49,354/- against the appellants along with interest thereon. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Tapper/Roller/Cartridge Bearings classifiable under Chapter Heading 8482.00 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the course of audit, it was revealed that the appellants had cleared Bearings Axle Box without payment of excise duty and education cess amounting to Rs. 22,49,354/- supplied to M/s. BEML during the period from November, 2004 to June, 2005 and had sought to claim exemption under Notification No. 63/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995. While contending that the appellants were not entitled to avail the benefit of the said Notification, show cause notice dated 25th November, 2005 came to be issued to the appellants which was contested by the appellants without any success as the claim in that regard was rejected by the adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case in hand, the Trade Notice in question has not been set aside or held to be void by the Supreme Court or any other High Court. 5. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that, the remand was for adjudication afresh and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order, passed by the authorities below after fresh hearing of the matter. He further submitted that the Trade Notice No. 53/92 dated 8th July, 1992 relates to Notification No. 184/86 and it cannot be applied to the Notification in question which is different from the Notification No. 184/86. As regards the letter dated 7-11-2003, the learned DR submitted that, the Commissioner has no authority to extend the benefit of any Notification beyond the scope of the Notification itself. Since Trade Notice did not relate to the Notification in question, according to the learned DR no fault can be found with the impugned order for not extending the said benefit in terms of the said Trade Notice to the appellants. 6. As regards the first contention that the issue, as to whether the appellants is a job worker or not and that the finding in that regard was already given by the Commissioner (Appeals) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the said evidence on record, the authorities below have held that, even considering the said material which would disclose that M/s. BEML used to manufacture the goods with the help of the inputs supplied by the appellants and the goods so manufactured by M/s. BEML were being supplied to the Defence Ministry that itself will not entitle to the appellants to claim the benefit of the said Notification. 8. Even one peruses the Notification No. 63/95-C.E., dated 15th, March 1995, as amended from time to time, it would disclose that the same grants exemption to the goods specified in column No. (2) of the table annexed to the said Notification and falling under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as per the conditions specified in the corresponding entry in column No. (3) of the table of the said Notification from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon as specified in the said Schedule and the additional duty of excise leviable thereon under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 on the goods specified against serial No. 1 of the said table. The appellants were claiming exemption with reference to serial No. 2 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out by the learned DR, the Trade Notice relates to Notification No. 184/86. It does not relate to the Notification in question. Even assuming that the exemption granted under Notification 63/95-C.E. is of similar nature as was granted under Notification No. 184/86, that itself will not be a justifiable ground to extend the Trade Notice in question to the cases under Notification No. 63/95-C.E. Each Notification for exemption of any tax liability or duty liability is issued with certain specific purpose. Unless the concerned Ministry or the Board comes out with necessary instructions that the Trade Notice, which is issued in relation to the exemption granted under particular provision, would also apply for some other Notification also, it would not be appropriate for the authorities acting under the said Act to enforce the duty liability arising under the said Act to extend the meaning of such Trade Notices and apply the same to a different situation arising under different Notification. 12. At this stage, the learned advocate for the appellants drew our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Sujan Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied to the circumstances arising under different Notification. Undoubtedly, in a case where there is doubt about the entitlement to take the benefit of any particular Exemption Notification in case a Circular issued under a different Notification can be of some help, certainly it may have a persuasive value, but cannot be said to be binding on the authority. 15. As regards the letter dated 7th November, 2003 by the Commissioner to the Executive Director of M/s. BEML is concerned, the same reads as under : "Please refer to your representation No. CA/05/463/2003 dated 9-10-2003 to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Bangalore Zone, Bangalore, on the above subject. Based on your letter No. MDS/121/VI/KGF/0644 dated 13-12-2002 addressed to M/s. HAL and copy endorsed to this office, the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Zone, Bangalore, has clarified that the benefit of Notification 63/95 will be extended to all job workers and vendors who supply inputs used in the manufacture of Finished Goods supplied to Ministry of Defence. The concerned Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioners have been instructed to extend the benefit under the Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
