2016 (2) TMI 1041

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...." to M/s. RITES LIMITED, New Delhi, under Invoice Nos. 488, 491, 492 and 493 of 2002 all dated 11-5-2002 and 699 of 2002, dated 30-5-2002 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 28-8-1995 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant was not entitled for the duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95 as the condition laid down in the said notification was not fulfilled. 4. Being aggrieved with the said Order No. 27/2003 (Refund), dated 10-8-2003, 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 27-2-2004 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eiterated. The appellant relied upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Engineering Innovations Ltd. v. C. Cus., Kandla - 2009 (242) E.L.T. 153. 7. The Revenue was represented 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 v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 ( S.C.), and Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Pune - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 296 (S.C.); the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Transmission Corpn. of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. - 2005 (189) E.L.T. 266 (A.P.) and prayed for rejection of the appeal. 8. Heard both sides and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of the goods by illegally claiming the benefit of the said notification. The purpose of the beneficial notification is for the successful implementation of various welfare measures which are intended to be carried out bearing 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 notifi....