TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that: - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner Versus Vulcan Gears [2011 (2) TMI 1347 - Supreme Court of India], where it was held that notification exempts the goods when they are supplied directly to the Ministry of Defence by the companies named therein and in the notification, the appellant’s name was not included in the names of the companies - appeal allowed. - E/734/2009-DB - Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that since the appellant was not one of the units specified in terms of the said Notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995, the benefit of the Notification, which exempted goods supplied to the Ministry of Defence, cannot be extended to them. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 21.06.2006 was issued proposing confirmation of demand of ₹ 1,26,602/-. The said show cause notice cul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal filed by the Commissioner was rejected, reported as 2014 (309) ELT A50(S.C). The ratio of the said decision is that the notification benefit would apply to the job worker and to all the vendors of the specified units, who are supplying the goods to Ministry of Defence. As such, it is submitted by the Advocate for the appellant that the impugned order be set-aside and appeal be allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, stands confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. As such, we are of the view that the decision confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court has to be placed upon a higher pedestal than the Tribunal decision relied upon by the Ld. DR. 7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
