TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, a certificate from the Chairman or the Managing Director of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. to the effect that (i) the goods are procured by or on behalf of the Delhi Metrol Rail Corporation Ltd. for use in the Delhi MRTS Projects; and . “ We agree with the learned advocate that in the absence of any direction in the said condition, requiring the assessee to send the original copy to the Revenue, the technical and procedural objection raised by the Revenue, cannot be upheld. Not only that, it is seen that appellant subsequently produced the original copy of the certificate even before the passing of the order by the Deputy Commissioner. In these circumstances, the Deputy Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent a copy of the same to the department on 18.6.2005 before the clearance of goods on 20.6.2005. It seems that Revenue objected to such production of photocopy instead of original certificate. The said original certificate was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner under the cover of their letter dated 11.4.2006. 4. The Deputy Commissioner did not take into consideration the said original certificate produced by the appellant on the ground that same was not placed before clearance of goods. Accordingly, he denied the benefit of exemption notification and confirmed the demand of ₹ 3,50,477/- along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty of Rs.One lakh in terms of provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Notification is not satisfied because as per the condition of the said Notification original certificate issued by the competent authority and not a copy of same was required to be submitted before the adjudicating authority prior to clearance of the goods. I find that the certificate does not fulfill the requirement of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002, as amended vide Notification No. 29/2003-CE dated 01.04.2003, therefore, I hold that the demand has rightly been confirmed against the appellant which is justified. The facts and circumstances of the case laws relied upon by the appellant are different than that of present case, hence not applicable. 5. On going through the impugned order, we find that only objection of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
