Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Auro Lab Versus CCE, Madurai

2016 (3) TMI 131 - CESTAT CHENNAI

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 of the sore fact that the victims of catara .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eping 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 signed but not countersigned. Taking into the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Central Excise, Madurai. The appellant had cl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 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 Executive Head of the Project Implementing Author .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tification 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 documents that the incidence of duty has been b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 production of a proper certificate before the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 possession of the certificate issued by the Proje .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al 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 judgment in the case of Sterlite Industries ( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 a Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India. .....

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. 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 cataract blindness 10. Taking cognizance 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

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 certificate and a certificate which was sig .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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