9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tween that body on the one hand and Asea Brown Boveri, or Tata Projects for use in projects which were financed by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation. At the relevant time, if the exemption for duty was in terms of Notification 108/95 to goods supplied to projects financed by the United Nations or an international organisation approved by the Government of India. The explanation to the notification explains in clause (a) that an international organisation means an international organisation to which the Central Government is has declared with provisions of the Schedule to the United Nations Privilege and Imitation 1947 was applied. The exemption was subject to various condition one among which was that the project to which the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty and imposed penalty on it and its Managing Director. Hence these appeals. 3. In its decision in Danke Electricals v. CCE appeal 3596/02 [2003 (160) E.L.T. 414 (T)] the Tribunal had before it an identical case of supply to projects of the Government of Maharashtra in terms of this notification. It found that the assessee, the appellant before it, had claimed the benefit of the exemption on being asked to do so by the purchaser of the goods Asea Brown Boveri and supplied a copy of the certificate signed by the technical director empowered of the project of Maharashtra State Electricity Board signed by the Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra. Therefore it is held that although the benefit of notification is not available the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, and verification from the concerned department of the Government of India that the Japan Bank of International Cooperation was not one of the organisations referred to in the notification. 5. By amendment made on 12-5-2000, the normal period of limitation was increased to one year from six months. Therefore clearance made beyond the normal period of limitation of one year could not have been subjected to duty. The next contentions of the appellant that the notice ought to have been issued by the Additional Director General of Central Excise Intelligence and having been issued by Joint Director it is invalid. Reliance is placed upon a circular dated 1-10-2003 issued by the Boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
