TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& Steel amenable to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of scrutiny of documents, it revealed that the assessee has cleared the goods valued at Rs. 32,82,765/- without payment of Central Excise Duty. Therefore, the notice dated 28-5-2002 (Annexure A6) was issued to the assessee, as to why exemption under Notification dated 28-8-1995 (Annexure A1), in respect of goods cleared, duty free, to M/s. Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Limited, Pune be not denied to the assessee, Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 5,16,602/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") alongwith interest under Section 11AB of the Act and penalty should not be imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001. 2. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 24-11-2003 (Annexure A10). 5. Still aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure A10), the assessee filed the appeal, which was also dismissed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, vide order dated 30-7-2004 (Annexure A12) [2004 (178) E.L.T. 452 (Tri. - Del.)]. 6. The assessee still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders (Annexure A7, A10 and A12) and filed the present appeal. 7. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended with some amount of vehemence that no doubt, the certificate dated 4-6-2001 (Annexure A2) was issued in the name of supplier M/s. Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Limited, Pune, but the assessee had been awarded purchase order by M/s. Thermax B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....connection. 9. In M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.'s case (supra), it was observed that "while construing an exemption notification not only a pragmatic view is required to be taken but also the practical aspect of it. A manufacturer would not know as to when the drug would be sold. It has no control over it. Its control over the drug would end when it is dispatched to the distributor. The manufacturer cannot supervise or oversee as to how others would be dealing with its product. All statutes have to be considered in light of object and purport of the Act." 10. Sequelly, in Sunder Steels Ltd.'s case (supra), it was held that "the notification has to be interpreted on its wording. No words, not used in the notification, can be added. To....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication (Annexure A1) or not? 14. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the view that the assessee is not entitled to the aforesaid exemption. 15. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, the Central Government exempts all goods falling under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 when supplied to the United Nation or an International Organization for their official use or supplied to the project financed by the ....