TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that a certificate was given by M/s. MSEB on 23.10.2000 and the same was counter-signed by the Principal Secretary (Energy), Govt. of Maharashtra. The Appellants vide letter dated 14.02.2001 have informed the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner about their intention to avail the benefit of the Notification No.108/95-CE on the strength of the said certificate. The Appellants have started making clearances within one week of the above said letter. The Appellants have cleared their goods during the period 20.02.2001 to 06.10.2001 and they have been filing RT-12 returns regularly. These facts have not been disputed either in the impugned orders or by the Authorized Representative during the course of hearing. We find that though the department w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the joint venture of Asea Brown Bovery Ltd., Vadodara and Best and Compton Engineering Ltd., Chennai for supply of specified goods and the supplies to be made in India to a project financed by Japan Bank for International Co-operation Fund (JBIC). The Appellant got a sub-Excise contract for the same on 23.12.2000 and the same was amended on 13.01.2001. In terms of Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.08.1905 MSEB arranged for the necessary certificate for procurement of goods. The Appellant has submitted a certificate to the jurisdictional authorities and cleared goods i.e. ACSR conductors , totally of 1,78,922 kg. valued at Rs.1,23,93,135/-, during the period 20.02.2001 to 06.10.2001. The department has opined that the Appellants are not eli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompton Engineering Ltd, Chennai, they have intimated to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner vide a letter dated 14.02.2001. The Appellants thus submitted all relevant details including the copy of the certificate. However, no objection or reservation in any kind whatsoever was expressed by the authorities. The Appellant was also regularly filing RT- 12 returns. That being the case, the Appellant cannot be faulted with and it cannot be alleged that they have suppressed any material fact. It is only in 2003 that the Tribunal in the case of Danke Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs [2003 (160) ELT 414 (T)] decided that the said certificate is not valid for the purpose of exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel has fairly submitted that they are not arguing the case on merits. However, they are disputing the invocation of extended period for issuance of the show cause notice. We find that a certificate was given by M/s. MSEB on 23.10.2000 and the same was counter-signed by the Principal Secretary (Energy), Govt. of Maharashtra. The Appellants vide letter dated 14.02.2001 have informed the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner about their intention to avail the benefit of the Notification No.108/95-CE on the strength of the said certificate. The Appellants have started making clearances within one week of the above said letter. The Appellants have cleared their goods during the period 20.02.2001 to 06.10.2001 and they have been filing RT-12 retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
