TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority but given to the agency executing the work in fact cannot go against the assessee s claim. Thus ultimately, as the machineries had been put in use by the sub-contractors, who were given the job of execution the claim for exemption cannot be denied. The use of the phrase supplied to the projects financed by the said United Nations or an International Organisation and approved by the Government of India clearly shows that the condition for grant of exemption is supply of the goods towards the project and nothing beyond. - Following the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court (2013 (7) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT), the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/S/41832/2014 & E/41572/2014 - Final Order No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is certified that 2 DG sets have been supplied by the appellants as per the project certificate and the equipments have been installed in the work. She also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble High Court, Madras in the case of CCE Pondicherry Vs Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (297) ELT 8 (Mad.) wherein on identical issue Revenue's appeal was rejected by upholding Tribunal's order. 5. Heard Ld.DR who reiterates the impugned order. 6. After hearing from both sides, we find that adjudicating authority in his order dt. 20.6.2012 dropped proceedings by relying Tribunal's order in the case of Cater Pillar India Ltd. whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing Revenue's appeal at para 3(e) observed that Revenue h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions found in the show cause notice, learned Standing counsel appearing for the Revenue pointed out that the on the admitted fact that the machineries had not been entrusted to the contract implementing authority and that the supply of goods were to the sub-contractors leading to possible misuse of the goods for unintended purposes, no exception could be made to the imposition of duty and there-by reject the benefit of the Notification. 8. We do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the order of the CESTAT based on a factual finding and there was no material placed by the Revenue on the allegations of the possible misuse of the goods for unintended purposes by the sub-contractors. Secondly, being the beneficial Notification i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal or an international organisation and approved by the Government of India, from the whole of :- (i) the duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and (ii) the additional duty of excise leviable thereon under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957). Thus with all the conditions satisfied, the beneficial Notification applies to the case on hand. In the circumstances, we do not find any justification to introduce any condition or read in a restrictive manner. Consequently, the Revenue s appeal fails and hence, the same is dismissed. No costs. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
