Strict construction of exemption notification bars supplier from claiming Defence supply benefit; duty upheld, penalty waived

An exemption notification must be applied strictly according to its express terms, and its benefit cannot be extended to a vendor or supplier unless that entity is specifically covered. Goods supplied by a vendor to Bharat Electronics Limited were held outside Notification No. 63/95-C.E. because the notification protected only the named units manufacturing for supply to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes, so the duty demand with interest was upheld. Penalty was nevertheless set aside because the dispute concerned interpretation of the notification and the claim was treated as a bona fide belief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether goods supplied by a vendor to Bharat Electronics Limited were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 63/95-C.E. dated 16.03.95 as supplies for the Ministry of Defence; (ii) Whether penalty was sustainable in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether goods supplied by a vendor to Bharat Electronics Limited were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 63/95-C.E. dated 16.03.95 as supplies for the Ministry of Defence.

Analysis: The exemption notification, read with Section 5A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, grants relief only to the units expressly named in the notification and only when the goods are manufactured by those units for supply to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes. The notification does not extend the benefit to vendors or suppliers to those entities. Since the appellant was only a supplier to Bharat Electronics Limited, the claimed exemption was outside the scope of the notification.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 63/95-C.E. and the duty demand with interest was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was sustainable in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the interpretation of the exemption notification and there had been uncertainty in the prevailing understanding during the relevant period. In that background, the appellant's claim could be viewed as based on a bona fide belief, and penalty was not considered justified.

Conclusion: The penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed on merits, so the duty and interest were sustained, but the penal consequence was removed in view of the interpretational nature of the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be applied strictly according to its express terms, and its benefit cannot be extended to vendors or suppliers unless they are specifically covered by the notification.

---