TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal denies exemption under Notification 63/95-CE for non-specified manufacturers supplying directly to Ministry of Defence</h1> <h3>DECPRO PAINTS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD</h3> DECPRO PAINTS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD - 2010 (251) E.L.T. 143 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:Interpretation of Notification No. 63/95-CE for exemption eligibility.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of excisable goods for exemption under Notification No. 63/95-CE. The lower Appellate Authority had extensively examined the submissions made by the appellants and concluded that the exemption was available for excisable goods manufactured by specified public sector undertakings, including M/s. BEML, for supply to the Ministry of Defence. The appellants, manufacturers of paints, claimed that the paints supplied to M/s. BEML for vehicles used by the Ministry of Defence were exempt from excise duty. They relied on various documents such as trade notices, certificates, and clarifications to support their claim. However, the authorities found that the appellants were not one of the specified manufacturers entitled to the exemption and were not directly supplying goods to the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the lower Appellate Authority's decision and dismissed the appeal.The Tribunal noted that the Trade Notice No. 53/92 issued by the Bangalore Central Excise Commissionerate clarified the duty implications for inputs processed by job-workers for specified PSUs like M/s. BEML. The clarification emphasized that duty paid inputs processed by job-workers for M/s. BEML, if meant for the manufacture of goods supplied for defence purposes, could be exempt from excise duty. However, it was clarified that the raw materials or inputs supplied to M/s. BEML were not inherently exempt from excise duty. The exemption under Notification No. 63/95-CE applied only when duty paid inputs were processed by job-workers for the specified PSUs, and not when inputs were directly supplied to the PSU for manufacturing purposes.In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellants did not meet the criteria for exemption under Notification No. 63/95-CE as they were not specified manufacturers and were not supplying goods directly to the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower Appellate Authority and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
