TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2002 dated 30.05.2002 on payment of duty of the above sum for the "Cataract Blindness Control Project", financed by the World Bank. 2. An exemption under Notification No. 108/95 dated 28.08.1995 is available on the goods supplied to the United Nations or an International Organization for their official use or supply to the project financed by the said United Nations or an International Organization and approved by the Government of India, from the whole of the duty provided that before the clearance of the said goods, the Manufacturer produces before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over his factory, in case the said goods are intended to be supplied to a project financed by the World bank and if the said pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aggrieved with the said order No. 27/2003 (Refund) dated 10.08.2003, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal was filed before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Madurai. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order in Appeal No. 93/2004 dated 27.02.2004 rejected the appeal filed by the appellant, on two counts i.e. non-production of the certificate before the clearance of the said goods and the certificate was not countersigned by an Officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India. 5. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has further held that the production of a proper certificate before the clearance of goods is the condition precedent to avail of the exemption under Notification No.108 / 95 -CE dated 28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by Shri Veerabhadra Reddy, JC(AR). The learned AR reiterated the contents in the OIO & OIA and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, New Delhi Vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal - 2010 (260) ELT 3 ( S.C.), and Eagle Flask Industries Ltd Vs. CCE, Pune - 2004 (171) ELT 296 (S.C.); the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd, Vs. Transmission Corpn. Of Andhra Pradesh Ltd,- 2005 (189) ELT 266 (A.P.) and prayed for rejection of the appeal. 8. Heard both sides and on perusal of records, we find that the Ophthalmology Section of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India had awarded the contract to the appellant assessee as per the terms and conditions of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earing in mind the laudable spirit which in this case is that the project was for controlling the "cataract blindness" 10. Taking cognizance of the sore fact that the victims of cataract blindness in this country is registering staggering height, year after year. As vision in the eyes is of paramount importance, than any other limbs to the human beings, bestowing sufficient concentration on this vital aspect should receive the utmost attention of the authorities by being liberal in passing benefits of such notifications. Any attempt to deny such benefits on technical grounds would contribute to the alarming growth in loss of vision, which no progressive society can afford. Keeping this in mind, the solitary ground that led to the denial ....