TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice No. V/(Cen)Adj/4-65/04-05 dated 09-09-2004 and No. V/Adj(SCN)15-70/RGD/05/7068 dated 06-10-2005. 2. The fact of the case is that the respondent in the month of October 2003 cleared D.G. Sets and parts thereof to M/s. Mazgaon Dock, Mumbai (A/c Indian Navy) at nil rate of central excise duty under the provisions of Notification No. 64/95-CE dated 16-03-1995 as amended by Notification No. 25/2002-CE dated 11-04-2002. The respondent also obtained a certificate as required in the Notification from the Indian Navy. Show cause notice dated 09-09-2004 was issued wherein it was alleged that the Notification No. 64/95-CE dated 16-03-1995 was applicable to the goods supplied to the Indian Navy. However, in the present case, the goods was supp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e only option left is to pay 8% of the value of the exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) and only reversal of actual credit will not be sufficient. Hence the demand on this ground was wrongly dropped by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. 4. On the other hand Shri Prasad Paranjape, Ld. Counsel for the respondent, submits that though the goods were supplied to Mazgaon Dock, but for the construction of warship of Indian Navy and to this effect, a certificate from Indian Navy was produced. The exemption is clearly available in terms of Sr. No. 21 of table appended to the Notification No. 64/95-CE dated 16-03-95. He further submits that the judgment of Leader Engineering Works (supra) is not relevant in the present case for the reason that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(S.C.) (iii) Commr. of C.Ex, Pune-II vs. Indian Hume Pipe - 2008 (223) E.L.T. 302 (Tri. - Mum.) (iv) Commr. of C.Ex, Mumbai-I vs. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (v) Madhyadesh Papers Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Nagpur - 2015-TIOL-2562-CESTAT-MUM 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 6. We find that the respondent have claimed exemption notification No. 64/95-CE on the clearance of the goods to M/s. Mazgaon Dock which is meant for construction of Indian Navy warship. The relevant exemption entry which was in corporate vide Notification No. 25/2002-CE dated 11-04-2002 is reproduced below: "Goods supplied for use in construction of warships of the Indian Na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to the Central Excise officer. In the said condition, it is no where mentioned that the goods has to be supplied to Indian Navy. Therefore, there is no dispute that the goods supplied to Mazgaon Dock for manufacture of Indian Navy warship, therefore in our considered view there is no need that the goods should be supplied to Indian Navy only. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Leader Engineering Works (supra), it is not a case of supply of goods for construction of Indian Navy warship but it is in respect of goods supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy. Therefore the fact of the present case is completely different from the fact of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cers are not precluded from filing an appeal if the circular issued by the Board is contrary to the law. In this case, it is seen that the department is not in appeal. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Leader Engineering Works - 2007(212) E.L.T. 168 (S.C.) was in the case of exemption Notification No. 64/95, which is a totally different notification. 4. In view of the circular and letter from the Board and Ministry of Finance, we agree with the learned advocate that the appellant is eligible for benefit of this notification. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed." The above judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2014 (309) E.L.T. A50 (S.C.): Akzo Nobel Coat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal in the case of CCE v Leader Engineering Works [2000 (122) E.L.T. 831(Tri)] and CCE v Haji Patrawala Pvt Ltd. [1999 (114) E.L.T. 620] has no applicability. Following the ratio of the decision in the case of Goa paints and Allied products cited above, which has been approved by the Apex Court, the impugned Order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any." In view of the above judgments, it is clear that the respondent is entitled for exemption notification No. 64/95-CE (Sr. No. 21) on their goods supplied for construction of warship of Indian Navy. As regard demand under Rule 6(3)(b), we find that the respondent have admittedly reversed the cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in exempted goods at the....