TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by various judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel. Moreover as per the retrospective amendment made in Rule 6 vide Finance Act; the assessee is required to reverse the actual cenvat credit attributable to exempted goods. For this reason also the demand of 8% proposed in the SCN under Rule 6(3)(b) is not correct. We are therefore of the considered view that the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner is just and legal, which does not require any interference. We therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/523/07-Mum - A/85411/16/EB - Dated:- 7-1-2016 - Ramesh Nair, Member (J) And Raju, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri V K Agarwal, ADC ( AR ) For the Respondent : Shri Prasad Paranjape, Adv ORDER Per Ramesh Nair The Revenue's appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 117-118/IDG (34)COMMR (ADJ)/05-06 dated 23/03/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Commissionerate, wherein the Ld. Commissioner dropped the proceeding initiated under show cause notice No. V/(Cen)Adj/4-65/04-05 dated 09-09-2004 and No. V/Adj(SCN)15-70/RGD/05/7068 dated 06-10-2005. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other hand Shri Prasad Paranjape, Ld. Counsel for the respondent, submits that though the goods were supplied to Mazgaon Dock, but for the construction of warship of Indian Navy and to this effect, a certificate from Indian Navy was produced. The exemption is clearly available in terms of Sr. No. 21 of table appended to the Notification No. 64/95-CE dated 16-03-95. He further submits that the judgment of Leader Engineering Works (supra) is not relevant in the present case for the reason that the said judgment is in contest of exemption entry i.e. All goods other than Cigarettes if supplied as store for consumption on board a vessel of the India Navy , whereas in the present case the exemption is covered under Entry No. 21 of the table of the Notification No. 64/95-CE dated 16-03-95 as amended vide Notification No. 25/2002-CE dated 11-04-2002. Therefore, the judgment is clearly distinguishable. He further submits that in various subsequent judgments, the judgment of Leader Engineering Works (supra) was distinguished. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Vulcan Gears vs. Commr. of C.Ex, Vadodara - 2014 (306) E.L.T. 655 (Tri. Ahmd.) (ii) Commissioner vs. Vulca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All goods. If,- (a) the said goods are supplied for use in construction of warships of the Indian Navy; and (b) before clearance of the said goods, a certificate from an officer not below the rank of a Rear Admiral of the Indian Navy or of any other officer of the Indian Navy equivalent to the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, to the effect that the said goods are intended for the said use, is produced to the proper officer. . [Notification No. 25/2002-C.E., dated 11-4-2002] From the above, entry it is observed that the goods supplied should be used in the construction of warship of Indian Navy and a certificate from the Indian Navy should be produced to the Central Excise officer. In the said condition, it is no where mentioned that the goods has to be supplied to Indian Navy. Therefore, there is no dispute that the goods supplied to Mazgaon Dock for manufacture of Indian Navy warship, therefore in our considered view there is no need that the goods should be supplied to Indian Navy only. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Leader Engineering Works (supra), it is not a case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The above judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2014 (309) E.L.T. A50 (S.C.): Akzo Nobel Coatings (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of C.Ex, Bangalore - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 306 (Tri.-Bang.) 2. We have heard both sides in the matter and find from the Notification that there is no prohibition for supplies to Indian Navy through sub-contractors. There is no dispute with regard to the receipt of the goods by the Indian Navy and they have issued certificate certifying about the receipt of the goods in respect of purchase orders placed by the Indian Navy to M/s. MDL and M/s. Western Indian Shipyard, Goa. We find from the citations referred to the appellant, that the Mumbai Bench in the case of Goa Paints and Allied Products v. CCE, Goa [2001 (127) E.L.T. 489] in identical facts and circumstances pertaining to the same Notification and supplies made to Indian Navy through sub-contractor has been approved by the Tribunal and the benefit has been extended. In the cited case, the goods were supplied by the appellants therein to M/s. MDL and M/s. Goa Shipyards Ltd. who in turn supplied the goods to Indian Navy. In terms of the said Notification, the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
