9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o March, 2009, filed by the appellant, the authorities noticed that appellant had claimed benefit of Notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16.03.95 from duty exemption of the goods cleared. Appellants are manufacturers of Mobile communication Shelters Antennas etc. The claim of the appellant was found to be inconsistent with the provisions of notification hence correspondence was entered with appellant. Appellant claimed that they have not discharged the duty liability as the products which are manufactured and were cleared to BEL, which in turn after use in manufacture, supplied the machinery to Ministry of Defence. Show cause notice was issued for the demand of the duty liability on such inproper availment of exemption notification. Appellant c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectronics Limited claiming the benefit of exemption Notification No. 63/95 dated 16.03.95. It is undisputed that the goods supplied by the appellant to BEL were used by them for further manufacturing activity and supplies to the defence purposes. It is the case of the appellant that such supplies also needs to be considered as supplied to Ministry of Defence; Revenue is holding it other way. 7. In order to come to a correct conclusion whether the said notification would apply to appellant's case or not. The said notification needs to be reproduced which is as under: Notification No. 63/1995- Central Excise, dated: March 16, 1995 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 194 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpts the goods supply to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes if they are manufactured by the entities/ PSU for supply to MOD. The said notification does not give any leverage to the suppliers by vendors to such entities as mentioned in notification. In our view, the benefit of the notification restricts the exemption only to units indicated in the above reproduced relevant portion of the notification. We find that the claim of the appellant in the case in hand is incorrect as to that they are eligible for the benefit of notification. 8. We find that the same view has been expressed by this Bench in the case of Astra Microwave Products Ltd., (supra) wherein, in paragraph No. 5 the Bench held as under: "5. The Notification No. 63/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
