2016 (10) TMI 869

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... claimed exemption under Notification no.6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 (Sl.No.19) in respect of buses cleared to M/s. Delhi Metro Railway Corporation (DMRC). The Revenue raised an objection  to the claim of exemption and the proceedings were initiated against them to deny the exemption  and to recover the duty. The impugned order held that the appellants are  not eligible for exemption claimed  and central excise duty  of Rs. 1,60,09,717/-  was confirmed against them. Penalty equal to the said duty was imposed on the main appellant and  a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the second appellant, who is the Director of the DMRC, Delhi. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Sl.No.19 of the Notificati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dmitted facts of the case are that the main appellant supplied buses to DMRC. The wordings of Entry No.90 in the Notification is specific and the appellant's claim that bus is an equipment cannot be accepted even by plain reading. The  Original Authority also relied on the Board's letter dated 14.09.2004  addressed to the DMRC enclosing two lists of items, for which exemption was sought by the DMRC. The Original Authority referred to the proceedings of the Empowered Committed on Delhi  MRTS Project. The Original Authority, after examining in detail, the background of DMRC's claim  with the Department of Revenue recorded that bus cannot be even by implication considered as "equipment"  It was also recorded that if th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 11 AC. The main appellant produced a certificate given by DMRC and claimed the exemption. DMRC gave such certificate  based on their understanding of the claim for exemption.  No fraudulent intent could be brought out in these transactions. DMRC is a Government Promoted Utility Organization and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no justification in the imposition of equal penalty on the appellant and personal penalty on the Director of DMRC. Accordingly, we set aside the penalties imposed on them. 8.  In view of the above findings, the appeal by the main appellant is partly rejected with reference to the claim of exemption and partly allowed with reference to penalty. The appeal by the Director, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X