TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Appeal No. E/3667/2003 arising out of the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-8-2003. 3.The Maharashtra State Electricity Board had issued a letter of intent to the petitioner - Company on 30-4-1997 for supplying material handling plants for the power project of MSEB. The said project was financed by the World Bank. On 28-8-1995, the Government of India had issued Central Excise Notification No. 108 of 1995 exempting, the supplies, made to the project financed by the World Bank. The petitioner filed declaration dated 27-4-1998 claiming exemption under the aforesaid notification in respect of the goods supplied by the petitioner to the MSEB for the above power project. On the ground that the World Bank had initially suspended and thereafter cancel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was confirmed by the Commissioner on 31-8-2000. When that order was carried in appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal passed order dated 14-5-2001 (Annexure "J") directing the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 25 lacs in Appeal No. E/3653-3654. To continue with those separate show cause notices referred to hereinabove, when the order dated 15-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the first two show cause notices came to be challenged before the Tribunal, the Tribunal passed order dated 22-1-2002 (Annexure "K") in stay application in the said appeal waiving the pre-deposit in respect of those two show cause notices on the ground that there was a duplication of the duty demand since the supplies were already covered by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice dated 14-2-2000 issued by the Anti-evasion branch covered the very supplies which were the subject matter of the six show cause notices in question and when the Tribunal had already taken the view while deciding the stay application in the appeal in connection with the first two show cause notices that there was duplication of demand in respect of the same goods which were covered by the show cause notice issued by the Anti-evasion branch, there was no justification for the Tribunal not to take the same view while deciding the stay application in the appeal concerning the remaining four show cause notices. 5.In response to the notice issued by this Court, Ms DN Raval, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears for the respondent and subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation in the appeal arising from the remaining four show cause notices, the subject matter of which was already covered by the proceedings taken out by the Anti-evasion branch of the department. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in observing that the question as to whether the demand is duplication or not is not one on which prima facie view can be taken. Even the Department had not contended that the supplies were not the same. Merely because another set of proceedings was initiated on the basis of another ground, that does not dilute the petitioner's assertion that the supplies were the same. 7.At this stage, Ms Raval, learned Senior Counsel for the Central Government submits that in view of the fact that the World Bank had c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
