AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 488
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts financed by international organizations and approved by Government of India, subject to the condition that in case the said goods are intended to be supplied to a project financed (whether by a loan or a grant) by the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank or any other International Organisation and if the project has been approved by the Government of India for implementation by the Government of State of Union Territory, then before clearance of the goods, the manufacturer produces before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over his factory, a certificate from the executive head of the Project Implementing Authority and countersigned by the Principle Secretary or the Secretary (Finance), as the case may be, in the concerned State Government or the Union Territory, that the said goods are required for the execution of the said project. 3. In the instant case, as the Project Implementing Authority certificates had not been issued in the name of manufacturer i.e. the appellants nor any mention made about the appellant in the said certificates, either as sub-contractor or as contractor, a show cause notice dt.18.03.2005 was served on the appellants....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. [2007 (219) ELT 430 (Tri-Ahmd)], decisions of co-ordinate Bench in the case of Bakewell Agro Ltd. [2012 (276) ELT 237 (Tri-Del)], H. Sarkar & Co. [2008 (226) ELT 119 (Tri-Kolkata)], Final Order No.A/615-616/WZB/AHD/2009, dt.17.03.2009 in the case of M/s Tiki Tar Industries. It is also his submission that M/s Gujarat Urban Development Co. Ltd. which had been appointed as a Project Implementing Authority, has subsequently confirmed and certified that TMT reinforcement steel bars which were supplied by the appellant to various projects in earthquake affected area have been consumed by the contractor to whom the project was awarded to. 7. Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, would submit that it is not disputed as to the certificate issued under the provisions of Notification No.108/95-CE, was not in the name of the appellant herein but was in the name of the contractor who executed the project. It is also his submission that in a situation like this, the benefit of Notification No.108/95-CE cannot be extended to the appellant as he is not the person mentioned in the certificate issued by the Project Implementing Authority. It is his submission that an identical ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tional organization and approved by Government of India. The sub-clause (c) of the said notification talks about the exemption to the goods intended to be supplied to a project financed (whether by loan or grant), by the World Bank, Asian Development Bank or any international organization other than those listed in the annexure. It is undisputed that the project for which the goods were cleared, was financed by World Bank and Asian Development Bank. We find that the appellant herein cannot be denied the benefit of notification since it is undisputed that the goods cleared by the appellant by availing the benefit of Notification No.108/95-CE, were consumed in the project executed in earthquake affected area. It is seen that Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s Caterpiller India Pvt.Ltd. were considering the similar issue, wherein Revenue was in appeal. As their Lordships were considering a similar issue, the entire judgment is respectfully re-produced. The Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in No.362/2005 dated 14.03.2005 raising the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether or not the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s confirmed. Apart from this, penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only) under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was also ordered. 6. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on appeal before the CESTAT, who agreed with the assessee's contention by following the decisions of the Tribunal in Toyo Engineering India Ltd Vs. CC, Mumbai reported in 2000 (122) ELT 315. The Tribunal pointed out that it was not the case of the Department that the goods had not been supplied to the projects financed by the International Organisation. The CESTAT further pointed out that there is nothing on record to show that the goods were used in any other project other than in implementation of the Golden Quadrilateral Project ; considering that the goods had admittedly been used in the project and after the completion of the projects, the goods supplied to the various Sub-Contractors were entrusted to retain the goods supplied could not stand in the way of granting the exemption under the Notification. Further there was no evidence that the goods in question were used in any other project after the implementation of Gold Quadrilateral Project. In the circumstances, the CESTAT allowed th....