9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... project. The issue in this appeal is that 'whether under the facts and circumstances for the clearances made during the period April, 2006 to November, 2006, as the appellant had wrongly claimed exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE and later on, on realizing his mistake he prayed before the authority that his claim of exemption be read in terms of Notification No.6/2006-CE. Whether the denial of claim is sustainable'. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Steel Structures of Transmission Tower used both in Telecommunication and Mega Power Projects. On 1st September, 2003 Ministry of Power, Government of India gave approval to NTPC for 26 packages on ICB (International Competitive Bidding) ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 28.03.2006 informed the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner that they would be clearing the goods under Nil rate of duty to the said project in terms of Notification Nor 108/95 dated 28/07/1995. After such in intimation they cleared the goods to the said project during the period April, 2006 to November, 2006 under Nil rate of Excise duty. After about one year of the said intimation, the Jurisdictional Superintendent issued a letter dated 07/03/2007 to the appellant expressing certain reservations about the applicability of exemptions Notification No. 108/95 to the goods cleared during the aforementioned period. The appellant after seeking legal advice realized his mistake and immediately informed the Revenue by his letter dated 14th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is misconceived. No case of any retrospective claim is made out from the show cause notice. It is evident on the face of record that the appellant had only rectified his claim which was earlier made under Notification No. 108/95 to the correct Notification being Notification No. 6/2006-CE. Thus, we hold that there is no case of any retrospective claim. Secondly, we find that Notification No. 6/2006 is of dated 01/03/2006 and the clearance were made thereafter and on this count also there is no question of any retrospective applicability of the said Notification. We further find that the appellant have rightly relied on the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ruling in Share Medical Care vs. Union of India 2007 (2)09 ELT 321 wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
