9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eared the same claiming benefit of exemption Notification No.108/95 dated 28/08/1995 for the projects financed by the Asian Development Bank. The case of the Revenue is that the goods manufactured by the appellant have not supplied to the project but to the contractors, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification No.108/95-CE. In these set of facts, the show-cause notice were issued to the appellant by invoking the extended period of limitation to deny the benefit of exemption Notification No.108/95 ibid. Consequently, to duty demand along with interest and to impose penalty. The matter was adjudicated, the demand of duty for extended period of limitation was dropped but the demand within the period of limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anced 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 subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957): Provided that before clearance of the said goods, the manufacturer produces before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over his factory, a certificate from the United Nations or an International Organisation that the said goods are intended for official use by the said United Nations or the said Inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 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 the Golden Quadrilateral Project financed by Asian Development Bank. Goods have also been used for the project. The Notification nowhere stipulates that the excisable goods supplied should be directly paid for the organisation financing the project. Since the goods have admittedly been used for the project, the question of misuse of goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication. 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 contractors as per the directions of the project implementing Authority, the fact that the machineries were not given directly to the project implementing authority but given to the agency executing the work in fact cannot go against the assessee‟s claim. Thus ultimately, as the machineries had been put in use by the sub contractors, who were given t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
