TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. R.K. Hasija, Advocate- for the appellant Sh. Satyapal, Sh. H. Singh, ARs- for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28/08/1995 was denied to the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Excavator Loaders and Earthmoving Machinery which have been cleared by them for projects to the contractors availing benefit of exemption Notification No. 108/95 dated 28/08/1995 for execution respective projects financed by the United Nations or an International Organisatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts all goods falling under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as the said goods) when supplied to the United Nations or an international organisation for their official use or supplied to the projects financed by the said United Nations or an International organisation and approved by the Government of India, from the whole of- (i) The duty of excise leviable thereon under section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944); and (ii) The additional duty of excise leviable thereon under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957): Provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he conditions of the Notification have been satisfied by the appellants, therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of the above Notification. Merely, on the ground that the goods have been supplied to the contractor directly who has executed the project in question and after the implementation of the products the machine shall remain with the property of the contractor cannot be reasons to deny the benefit of notification as held by this tribunal in the case of Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under: 3. It is not the case of the department that the goods have not been supplied to the projects financed by international organisations. The goods were supplied to various sub contractors for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court reported in 2013 (297) ELT 8 (Mad.) has observed as under: 6. considering that the goods had admittedly been used in the project and after the completion of the projects, the goods supplied to the various sub contractors were entrusted to retain the goods supplied could not stand in the way of granting, the exemption under the Notification. 8. We do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the order of the Cestat based on a factual finding and there was no material placed by the Revenue on the allegations of the possible misuse of the goods for unintended purposes by the sub contractors. Secondly, being the beneficial Notification issued in public interest and the project itself being executed fully by the contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the whole of- (iii) The duty of excise leviable thereon under section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944); and (iv) The additional duty of excise leviable thereon under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957): Thus with all the conditions satisfied, the beneficial Notification applies to the case on hand. In the circumstances, we do not find any justification to introduce any condition or read in a restrictive manner. Consequently, the Revenue s appeal fails and hence, the same is dismissed. No costs. 5. We find that the issue involved in hand is the identical case of the M/s JCB India Limited (Supra) , therefore, we f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
