TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting project financed by United Nations or an International Organization - benefit allowed - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. - E/372/2009-EX[DB] - A/71188/2016-EX[DB] - Dated:- 29-12-2016 - MR. (DR.) SATISH CHANDRA, PRESIDENT AND MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri T.K. Sikdar, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) for the Department Shri Abhishek Raju, Advocate for the respondent-assessee Per Anil G. Shakkarwar: The present appeal is filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 201-CE/MRT-I/2008 dated 28.11.2008 passed by Commissioner (Appeal) Customs Central Excise, Meerut-l. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee was registered with Central Excise Department and was engage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... project financed by United Nations but supplied the goods to awardee of the contract therefore they were not eligible for the benefit of said notification. The show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original No. 14/2008 dated 07.03.2008. The Original Authority has held that it was the statutory requirement that the awardee himself produces a certificate for claiming exemption under said notification and the said notification was not eligible to be availed by sub contractor such as the respondent. Therefore, the Original Authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 48,47,040/- and imposed equal penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had filed appeal against the same before Hon'ble High Court of Chennai and the matter was still pending before the said Hon'ble High Court. 4. Heard learned D.R. for the Revenue who has reiterated the ground of appeal. 5. Heard Shri Abhishek Raju, Advocate for the respondent-assessee, he has placed reliance on the ruling by Hon'ble high Court at Madras in the case of Pondicherry Caterpillar India Pvt Ltd, reported at 2013 (297) ELT 8(Mad.) which was affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court as reported at 2016(335) ELTA27(S.C.). 6. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the above stated case of C.C.E. Pondicherry vs. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. had held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
