TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 785
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng facility of water treatment are exempted, whereas the goods under reference are supplied for setting up of Godawari Lift Irrigation Scheme having no facility of water treatment; that the Notification stipulates that the certificate should be in the name of the manufacturer of the excisable goods required to be issued by the District Collector in which the project is located, whereas in the instant case, the certificate bearing No. H7/4029/2005 dated 16-6-2005 issued by the District Collector, Warangal (Andhra Pradesh) is not in the name of the assessee but in the name of M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. (KBL) ; that the Notification stipulates that the certificate issued by the District Collector has to be produced before the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the factory or the manufacturer before effecting the clearances of the excisable goods from the factory, whereas in the instant case, the assessee has not produced the said certificate issued by the District Collector; that the details of the project and the use of the goods to be supplied are to be given in the certificate issued by the District Collector; that however, it is not appearing in the certifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the appellant, denying exemption under Notification No. 3/2004 is totally unjust and arbitrary; (iii) that the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Hindustan Colas Ltd. v. CCE - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 430 (T) = 2007 (81) RLT 504 has laid down that merely because the certificate issued under Notification No. 3/2004 is in the name of the main contractor and is not in the name of the manufacturer-supplier of the goods, exemption under Notification No. 3/2004 is not deniable; (iv) that the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Spic Organic Ltd. v. CCE - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 73, Caterpillar India (P) Ltd. [2005 (185) E.L.T. 430, Automatic Electrics Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 524 (T) = 2004 (65) RLT 303, CESTAT F.O. No. 1613 and 1614/2005 dated 9-9-2005 [2006 (206) E.L.T. 246 (T) in the case of Deepak Cables v. CCE, has laid down the same ratio; (v) that the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals-II), Pune vide his OIA No. PII/BKS/37/2007 dated 20-3-2007 in the case of M/s. PEC Electro Controls Pvt. Ltd. has laid down that the exemption under Notification No. 3/2004 is not deniable because the certificate was issued under the said n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 20-3-2007 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune II involving the same issue; (xi) that the contention of the Assistant Commissioner that the certificate issued by the District Collector was not submitted before the Assistant Commissioner is not correct since the appellant had submitted the same before the Superintendent, Central Excise incharge of the appellant's unit who is also part and parcel of the Assistant Commissioner's office. When the certificate was submitted to the Range Officer, who should have directed the appellant to submit the same before the Assistant Commissioner or he should have forwarded the same to the Assistant Commissioner but the Range Officer has done nothing and for his mistake, denying the appellant's benefit of exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-C.E. dated 8-1-2004 is totally unjust; (xii) that the penalty is imposable only in the cases where the contraventions of the provisions of Central Excise Act/Rules is done deliberately with mala fide intention. However, in their case, all the transactions are done with the knowledge of the Department. Further, the issue involved is of interpretation of provisions of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision. In the instant case, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Satara denied the exemption available under Notification No. 03/2004 holding that the certificate issued by the District Collector was not in the name of the appellant and the certificate was not produced before the Assistant Commissioner. On these two grounds, he rejected the plea of the appellant and confirmed the duty. Against the above Order, the appellant has come up with the present appeal and stay petition. The contention of the appellant that the District Collector's certificate was not in the name of the appellant and was in the name of the main contractor namely, M/s. Kirloskar Bros Ltd. (KBL) is a technical violation. There is no dispute regarding the procurement of goods by the appellant and usage of the same in the project. As regards non-production of certificate before the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant contended that the said certificate was produced before the Range Officer before clearance of the goods. He further contended that if the Range Officer is not concerned office, either he should have forwarded the said certificate to the Assistant Commissioner or directed the appellant t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....continue to possess the same even after the completion of project - Admittedly, goods were used for the project - Hence, exemption under Notification ibid not deniable - Demand not sustainable - Penalty not imposable - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (paras 2, 3, 4)". 4.1 Though there are many such decisions, which have covered the present issue, only a few decisions have been quoted as above. From the above decisions, it can be seen that there is no necessity that the certificate should be in the name of the supplier and there is no bar to issue certificate in the name of the contractor. What is to be seen is whether the goods were procured and were used for the purpose for which the certificate was obtained. In the instant case, there is no such dispute on the above aspect. It may also be seen that Notification No. 03/2004 nowhere mentions that the certificate should be issued only in the name of the supplier. Notification says that "that a certificate issued by the Collector / Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate of the District in which the project is located, is produced to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or ....