2018 (1) TMI 615 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal restores appeal, clarifies exemption criteria, disregards certification need, and sets aside order.

M/s C.D. Engineering Co. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad

The Tribunal restored the appeal dismissed for default, examined eligibility for exemption under specific notifications, clarified the requirement of a ... Eligibility of exemption under N/N. 6/2006-EX dated 01/03/2006 read with N/N. 21/2002-CUS dated 01/03/2002 - flanges - non-production of certificate of DGHS as one of the Contractor/Sub-contractor - Held that: - they supplied these items as per ‘international competitive bidding’ to the Contractor/Sub-contractor executing project as per requirement - further, the condition No.29 referred to in N/N. 21/2002 is to be complied by importers of goods and do not apply to domestic manufacturers. Therefore, when there was no requirement of producing Project Authority Certificate, the reasoning given by the Appellate Authority, is otherwise out of context, is not sustainable - appeal allowed. Issues:1. Restoration of appeal due to dismissal for default.2. Eligibility for exemption under specific notifications.3. Requirement of certificate from DGHS for exemption.4. Contrary findings in the impugned order compared to earlier orders.Issue 1: Restoration of appeal due to dismissal for defaultThe judgment begins with the consideration of a Miscellaneous Application for Restoration of Appeal. The appellant's counsel could not attend the hearing due to personal reasons, resulting in the appeal being dismissed for default. The appellant filed an Application for Restoration of Appeal shortly after, explaining the circumstances. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to its original number.Issue 2: Eligibility for exemption under specific notificationsThe appeal pertains to a case where the appellants claimed exemption under Notification No.6/2006-EX and Notification No.21/2002-CUS for supplying flanges to a project. The Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant for denial of the exemption claimed. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly upheld the order, leading to further appeals. The Tribunal examined whether the appellant was eligible for the exemption claimed under the mentioned notifications. The appellant argued that they were rightfully eligible for the exemption, citing previous orders in their favor. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and previous decisions to determine the eligibility for the exemption.Issue 3: Requirement of certificate from DGHS for exemptionThe appellant contended that they did not need to produce a certificate from DGHS as they were domestic manufacturers supplying against international bids. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and held that the requirement of a certificate from DGHS was not applicable to domestic manufacturers. The Tribunal found that the reasoning of the Appellate Authority regarding the certificate was not sustainable and out of context.Issue 4: Contrary findings in the impugned order compared to earlier ordersThe Tribunal noted that the impugned order did not provide valid reasons for differing from earlier findings in the appellant's favor. The Tribunal examined the eligibility of the appellant for exemption and found that the impugned order was not legally sustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.