9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bijilee Limited and M/s Elpro Engineering, and confirmed duty demand of Rs. 12,28,000/- with interest and penalty against M/s Bharat Bijilee Limited. He also confirmed duty demand of Rs. 2,08.800/- against M/s Elpro Engineering with interest and penalty. The basis for confirming the duty demand is that the respective appellant during the relevant period cleared the excisable goods to M/s TEIL without the payment of excise duty by wrongly availed the exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 on the basis of forge certificate. 2. The issue for determination is whether or not the appellant have rightly availed the benefit of exemption from excise duty in terms of Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.08,1995. For the sake of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the said goods are intended for official use by the said United Nations or the said international organisation or are to be supplied to a project financed by the said United Nations or the said international organisation and the said project has duly been approved by the Government of India. Explanation. - For the purpose of this notification, "international organisation" means an international organisation to which the Central Government has declared, in pursuance of section 3 of the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 (46 of 1947), that the provisions of the Schedule to the said Act shall apply. [Notification No. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-1995] " 3. The case of the Department, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise duty under the notification at the cost of the Revenue. 3. Shri M.H. Patil, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that admittedly in the instant case the appellants have cleared the subject goods without the payment of excise duty in terms of the exemption Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 on the strength of the requisite certificate issued by the Executive Head of the Project Implementing Authority and purported to be signed by the Joint Secretary to the Ministry of Finance. It is submitted that if at all the certificate was forged the appellants cannot be blamed for that particularly when it is not the case of the department that the appellants was an active conspirator in evasion of excise duty or that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he strength of the requisite certificate issued by the Executive Head of the Project Implementing Authority i.e. ICICI Bank purportedly countersigned by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance. It is not the case of the Revenue that the appellants while clearing the subject goods under exemption notification were aware of forgery if any in respect of the signature of the Joint Secretary or that they were aware that Finance Ministry was not the line Ministry for the purpose of the project undertaken by M/s TEIL. It is also not the case of the Department that the appellants were in conspiracy with M/s TEIL. Thus, prima-facie bonafide of the appellants clearing the subject goods under exemption Notification No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
