9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of law :- (I) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed a grave error by sustaining a demand of Central Excise on the basis of preserve findings by the Courts below? (II) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed a grave error by not considering the fact that admittedly the alleged quantity of goods was manufactured to be used by the United Nations or an International Organization approved by the Government of India? (III) Whether the Certificate As per Notification No. 108/95-C.E., dated 29-8-1995 has to be in the name of the assessee even though admittedly goods are manufactured and sold to a organization holding a certificate for usage by the United Nations or an International Organization approved by the Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved by the Government of India for implementation by the Government of a State or a Union Territory, a certificate from the executive head of the Project Implementing Authority and countersigned by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary (Finance), as the case may be, in the concerned State Government or the Union Territory, that the said goods are required for the execution of the said project, and that the said project has duly been approved by the Government of India for implementation by the concerned State Government." 5. He contended that the present appellant-assessee has proved all requirements. He further contended that the certificate which has been issued in favour of ANS Constructions who has taken the goods supplied by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tificate is being issued in pursuance of the requirement under Government of India (Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue) Notification No. 108/95, dated 28-8-1995 as amended upto date Excise Duty Exemption may be allowed against above referred material. (J.N. Golani) (Manoj Sharma, IAS) S E. Project Implementation Unit Project Director, RUIDP, Udaipur RUIDP, Jaipur (M.D. Kaurani) Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) Government of Rajasthan 6. He further contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the same and arrived at the finding as under : "I have carefully gone through the case records, written reply dated 5-4-2006 to the show cause notice and submission made at the time of personal hearing. From the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson vide letter dated 8-12-2005 is also not correct as the Range Officer in the draft show cause notice forwared vide letter dated 24-1-2006 has himself pointed out that no reply to letter dated 26-10-2005 has been received from the assessee. However, if it is admitted for the sake of argument that the assessee submitted the documents/information vide letter dated 8-12-2005 even than the conditions of the notification are not fulfilled as the goods in question were removed in the month of July 2004 and March 2005 and certificate was required to be produced before that clearances. Moreover perusal of the certificate submitted by the assessee on 28-3-2006 reveals that the said certificate is in the name of M/s. ANS Construction Ltd., New ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods by claiming exemption under Notification No. 108/1995-C.E., dated 28-8-1995 on the bars of certificate which has already been produced by the Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd., Bhiwadi. I find that production of certificate is one of the conditions under Notification to ascertain the genuineness of the transaction and the requirement of the goods by the project. The above Notification stipulated that before clearance of the "said" goods, the manufacturer shall produce before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, a certificate issued under Notification No. 108/95 ibid. I find that in the instant case, the appellant has not fulfilled such condition of producing the certificate before the competent authority before effecting clearances of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould be considered as proper and valid for the purpose of claiming duty exemption contained in the notification dated 28-8-1995. The facts involved in the decision cited by the Ld. Advocate are different from the facts of the present case inasmuch as in those decided cases the nexus was established between the parties to the contract to demonstrate that the goods supplied were actually used for the intended purpose. Since the certificate produced by the appellant has not been issued in its name, the decision cited by the Ld. Advocate in the case of Regional Executive Dir. And Dynaspede of Integrated Systems Ltd. (supra), have also no application to the facts of this case. 7. It is an admitted fact on record that the requirement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
