TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06 which squarely covered the case of the appellant and in view of certificate issued by competent authority, the appellant is entitled for the benefit - both the units are covered under the said notification and goods are ultimately supplied for use by Ministry of Defence. Therefore, it is clarified that even if goods are cleared / sold by the first unit to the second unit, it is covered by the said notification since it is ultimately meant for supply for Ministry of Defence - the appellant will be entitled for the refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - D. B. Central/Excise Appeal No. 5 / 2011 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2017 - K. S. Jhaveri And Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Nath with Mr. Archit Bohr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (BEML), which was engaged in manufacture of Wagons under the control of the Ministry of Defence, was required to initiate action to supply the Wagons to the Ministry of Defence. For this purpose BEML had to take advance action to procure components required for manufacture of the said wagons. The Roller Bearing Axle Box Assembly was one of the essential components for the manufacture of the said BFAT Wagons. This item was required to be procured by BEML from other manufacturers who engaged in manufacture of the said item according to the drawings and specifications for use in the said BFAT Wagons. Accordingly, BEML had identified M/s National Engineering Industries Ltd., Jaipur to manufacture the said assembly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DESCRIPTION EXTENDED Value of P.O. in Rupees M/s. National Engneering Inds Ltd. Khatipura Road, Jaipur 302006 WA/81/88/756607 dtd: 14.09.2004 Qty: 1284 Nos 20.3 Ton Roller Bearing Axlebox Assy, complete. ₹ 20967720=00 For Bharat Earth Movers ltd. Sd/- H.S. PRAKASH General Manager, Materials, 3.3 He further contended that the specific contention which has been found in the order of CIT(A) reads as under:- 5. I have gone through the case record, submissions made by the appellants in appeal memorandum and at the time of personal hearing. I find that, the benefit of Notification No.6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , I also find that para 3 of the Circular No.5/92 clarifies that The position will of course different if any of the job worker are clearing the goods directly from their units for excise purpose on a principal to principal basis and are not returning the goods for eventual clearance to any of the five unit listed in the Notification . In view of this, I also find that, there is no evidence on record to prove that the relation between the Appellant and BEML are not on Principal to Principal basis, therefore, the Appellant is not entitle for the benefit extended through the said circular. Accordingly, I hold that the benefit of the said Notification has rightly been denied, and uphold the demand. The facts and circumstances of the cited cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 23rd June 2006 To All the Chief Commissioners of Central Excise 2. All the Commissioners of Central Excise All the Director Generals under Central Board of Excise Customs. Sir, Subject:- Exemption from duty for raw materials procured under notification 63 / 95 CE dated 16.03.1995 Reg. - - - - - - Attention is invited to notification No. 63/95-CE which exempts all goods manufactured by the 8 units, mentioned at Sr.No. 2 of Column 3 of the notification, from payment of central excise duty provided the goods are for supply to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes. Board vide circular No. 5 / 92 dated 19.05.1992 had clarified that even when goods are manufactured by other ancill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the following judgments:- 1. Delco Incorporated vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore (2000) 117 ELT 725 (Tribunal). 2. Tata Electronic Development Services vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore 1999 (107) ELT 86 (Tribunal). 3. Bharat Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. Ex., Guntur 2006 (198) ELT 239 (Tri-Bang). 4. Collector of Central Ex., Vadodara vs. Dhrien Chemical Industries 2002 (139) ELT 3 (SC). 5. Commissioner of Central Ex., Bolpur vs. Ratan Melting Wire Industries 2008 (231) ELT 22 (SC). 6. Ranadey Mircronutrients vs. Collector of Central Ex., 1996 (87) ELT 19 (SC). 7. Steel Authority of India vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay 2000 (115) ELT 42 (SC). 8. Collector of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
