2014 (9) TMI 945

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Santhanam, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Yashpal Sharma, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER The facts leading to filing of this appeal and cross objection are in brief as under :- 1.1 The Respondent are manufacturers of mild Steel CTD Bars. During the period from April'03 to June'04, they supplied the CTD Bars free of duty under Notification No. 108/95-C.E., to various parties for supply ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed certificate issued by the Designated Authorities as per the requirement of Notification No. 108/95-C.E., were not in the name of the Respondent, and the goods have not been supplied directly to the Asian Development Bank Financed Projects, the Respondent were not eligible for duty clearance of the goods under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. It is on this basis that after issue of Show Cause Notice....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by him directly to the Project but were supplied to the Contractors of Projects, is not correct. Against this order of Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed by the Revenue and in respect of the Revenue's Appeal the Respondent have filed a Cross-Objection. The Revenue's appeal has been filed on the ground that in terms of condition of the Notification, the certificate issued by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Ltd., reported in 2013 (297) E.L.T. 8 (Mad.), has decided this issue in favour of the Respondent, that in this judgment Hon'ble Madras High Court has agreed with Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in case of Toyo Engineering India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 315 (Tri.-LB.), and that in view of this, there is no infirmity in the impugned order....