Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (3) TMI 131 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2016 (3) TMI 131 - CESTAT CHENNAI - TMI - Eligibility for exemption Notification No. 108/95 dated 28.08.1995 on “sutures” cleared to the Government under the project funded by the World Bank - Held that:- The purpose of the beneficial notification is for the successful implementation of various welfare measures which are intended to be carried out bearing in mind the laudable spirit which in this case is that the project was for controlling the “cataract blindness”

Taking cognizance o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hich no progressive society can afford. Keeping this in mind, the solitary ground that led to the denial of the benefit under the said notification was that the certificate was not countersigned by an Officer of stipulated rank viz., not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India. In the instant case, the said certificate had been signed by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India. There is understandably difference between an unsigned certificate and a certificate which was sign .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ect funded by the World Bank - Decided in favour of assessee - E/640/2004 - Final Order No. 40319 / 2016 - Dated:- 17-2-2016 - SHRI R. PERIASAMI, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri T. Ramesh, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Veerabhadra Reddy, JC(AR) ORDER PER P. K. CHOUDHARY M/s Aurolab, Madurai, hereinafter referred to as the Appellant had filed a refund claim dated 13.05.2003 for a sum of ₹ 5,46,952/- with the Assistant Commissioner of Cen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t financed by the said United Nations or an International Organization and approved by the Government of India, from the whole of the duty provided that before the clearance of the said goods, the Manufacturer produces before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over his factory, in case the said goods are intended to be supplied to a project financed by the World bank and if the said project has been approved by the Government of India, a certificate from the Executi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

artment of availing exemption under the notification nor produced the certificate before clearance of the said goods before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. (ii) As required under the notification, a certificate issued by the head of the Project implementing Authority and countersigned by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India has to be produced. But the certificate produced by them has not been countersigned. (iii) They have not furnished the docum .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Commissioner, an appeal was filed before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Madurai. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order in Appeal No. 93/2004 dated 27.02.2004 rejected the appeal filed by the appellant, on two counts i.e. non-production of the certificate before the clearance of the said goods and the certificate was not countersigned by an Officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India. 5. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has further held that the prod .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng in the bid, the central excise duty was not payable on such sutures and however, w.e.f 1.3.2002, the central excise duty was levied on sutures and therefore, the appellant has cleared the goods on payment of central excise duty; that under the Exim Policy, the supplies made by the appellant are considered as deemed export and the appellant are entitled for the refund of terminal excise duty paid on the goods supplied to the project financed by the World Bank; that the appellant are in possess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d upon the judgment of this Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Engineering Innovations Ltd Vs. C Cus, Kandla 2009(242) ELT 153. 7. The revenue was represented by Shri Veerabhadra Reddy, JC(AR). The learned AR reiterated the contents in the OIO & OIA and relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, New Delhi Vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal - 2010 (260) ELT 3 ( S.C.), and Eagle Flask Industries Ltd Vs. CCE, Pune - 2004 (171) ELT 296 (S.C.); the Andhra Pradesh High Court s jud .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in mind that the clearance of the goods was for Cataract Blindness Control Project financed by the World Bank. It is true that the benefit of notification becomes eligible only in the event of fulfillment of the conditions stipulated therein. In the instant case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the benefit of this notification on two counts viz non-production of certificate before the clearance of the said goods, and the certificate was not countersigned by an Officer not below the rank of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ous as we find that there is no such finding. 9. It has not been disputed by the lower authority that the goods cleared were not for the intended project or that there was diversion of the goods by illegally claiming the benefit of the said notification. The purpose of the beneficial notification is for the successful implementation of various welfare measures which are intended to be carried out bearing in mind the laudable spirit which in this case is that the project was for controlling the c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the alarming growth in loss of vision, which no progressive society can afford. Keeping this in mind, the solitary ground that led to the denial of the benefit under the said notification was that the certificate was not countersigned by an Officer of stipulated rank viz., not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India. In the instant case, the said certificate had been signed by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India. There is understandably difference between an unsigned c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version