TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 is also available to sub-contractors for manufacture and supply of goods for or on behalf of the main contractor (who has won the contract for the supply of goods to the projects financed by the Un or an international organization and approved by the Government of India) for execution of the said project, subject to compliance of other specified conditions, if any. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Ex. Misc. Application (EH) No.75342 of 2019, CO-75656 of 2017 And Ex. Appeal No.75257 of 2017 - MISC. ORDER NO.75645-75646/2019 And FINAL ORDER NO.75461/2019 - Dated:- 10-4-2019 - MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR.V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in. The Respondent obtained Project Authority Certificate (PAC) duly countersigned by the Principal Secretary in the concerned State Government that the goods are required for execution of the said project and that the said project has been duly approved by the Government of India for implementation by the concerned State. The Department noticed that the clearance of the goods made by the Respondent in terms of PAC, were made to the project site in the name of the contractors engaged by the Project Implementing Authority (PIA). The Department took the view that the benefit of Notification cannot be extended to the Respondent since the goods were not supplied to the PIA. By issue of six periodical show-cause notices, the Department proposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. We have heard both sides and perused the records. 7. The moot point to be decided in this appeal, is whether the exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 is available when the goods have been dispatched in the name of contractors approved and assigned with the project work by the Project Authority. After going through the case laws cited by the Respondent, we find that the issue stands already settled and decided in favour of the Respondent. It is also seen that the Adjudicating Authority has extended the benefit on the basis of the decision in favour of the Respondent in the cases of H.Sarkar Company Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Adjudicating Authority, herself, in the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actors. 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 the job of execution the claim for exemption cannot be denied. The use of the phrase supplied to the projects financed by the said United Nations or an International Organization and approved by the Government of India clearly shows that the condition for grant of exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be restricted to direct supplies by the contractor to the project. In this regard, it is clarified that the exemption from excise duty, under notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 is also available to sub-contractors for manufacture and supply of goods for or on behalf of the main contractor (who has won the contract for the supply of goods to the projects financed by the Un or an international organization and approved by the Government of India) for execution of the said project, subject to compliance of other specified conditions, if any. On issuance of the said clarification in this regard by the board, the impugned issue deserves to be finally put to rest. Therefore, after car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
