TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ucture Project funded by the Asian Development Bank. The impugned notification exempts all the goods supplied to projects 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 Principal 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 s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....)]. It is his submission that this Bench has been consistently following this view, as can be seen from the decision of this Bench in the case of Hindustan Colas Ltd. [2007 (219) E.L.T. 430 (Tri.-Ahmd.)], decisions of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Bakewell Agro Ltd. [2012 (276) E.L.T. 237 (Tri.-Del.)], H. Sarkar & Co. [2008 (226) E.L.T. 119 (Tri.-Kolkata)], Final Order No. A/615-616/WZB/AHD/2009, dated 17-3-2009 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-C.E., 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 Notificati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Kuchh. 13. On this factual background, it is to be seen whether the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. can be extended to the appellant or not. It has to be seen that the said notification specifically talks about the benefit of exemption of Excise duty on the goods supplied to the project financed by an international 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-C.E., 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question of rejection of the benefit under the Notification does not arise. The assessee pointed out that when the object of the Notification is met, the exemption could not be rejected. 6. The claim of the assessee was however rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise and reconfirmed the earlier view by pointing out that the only authority to whom the machineries could be given was only the project implementing authority and there was nothing to show that the goods in question were given to the project implementing authority, thus, the demand raised proposal was 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. 7. 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. v. CC, Mumbai reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion No. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-1995 reads as follows :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts all goods falling under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as the said goods) when supplied to the United Nations or an international organisation for their official use or supplied to the projects financed by the said United Nations or an international organisation and approved by the Government of India, from the whole of :- (i) the duty of excise leviable thereon under section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944); and (ii) the additional duty of excise leviable thereon under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importa....