9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Garg, DR ORDER Per Sulekha Beevi CS Brief facts of the case are as under 1. The appellants are manufacturer of wires and cables and S.S.Wire falling under chapter heading No.8544 and 7273 respectively of CETA, 1985. The appellants cleared goods to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.for use in DMRC project without payment of excise duty by claiming exemption under notification NO.6/2002-CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants are thus before the Tribunal. 3. The learned Counsel for appellant Shri Bipin Garg submitted that the certificate had been already produced before the concerned departmental officers. The copy of the certificate was produced before the adjudicating authority again on 12.4.2006. But the demand was confirmed without considering the same. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR, Ms. Neha Garg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating authority. The only grounds on which the benefit of exemption is denied is that the certificate was not produced before clearances and that the certificate produced before the adjudicating authority is only a copy. The appellant has pleaded that DMRC Ltd. issued the required certificate dated 5.7.2005, 18.7.2005 and 11.8.2005 which were sent to the Deputy Commissioner under certificate of po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The exemption is denied for the reason that the certificate has not been received in the office of the respondent. From the copy of certificate produced before adjudicating authority, it is clear that the goods were cleared to DMRC Ltd. for use in DMRC project and therefore the goods satisfied the condition for being exempted. The only dispute is on pressing into application the benefit of exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
