TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure Filter Elements & parts thereof falling under heading No.8421 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. ii. They have cleared the said excisable goods for the use of Indian Navy through M/s Mazagaon Dock Ltd., Mumbai. The appellant has claimed the exemption of the duty payment as per Notification No.64/95 but the department has denied the same. Being aggrieved the appellant has filed the present appeals. 3. With this background we heard Shri Alok Kothari, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri H.C. Saini, Ld. DR for the revenue. 4. The first objection taken by the Department is that certificate in case of certain invoices was not issued by the competent authority. It was issued by the officer in the Rank of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. But the Tribunal in CCE, Raigad v/s Wartsila (I) Pvt Ltd. (supra) observed as below: 6. We find that the respondent have claimed exemption Notification No.64/95-C.E. 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 incorporated vide Notification No.25/2002-C.E., dated 11-4-2002 is reproduced below: "Goods supplied for use in construction of warships of the Indian Navy - Exemption - Amendment to Notification No.64/95-C.E. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidered 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, the said judgment is clearly distinguished. Due to the difference of facts in the subsequent judgments as cited by the ld. counsel the Tribunal distinguished the judgment of Leader Engineering Works (supra). The said judgment and its relevant paras are reproduced bel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....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 Coatings (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Bangalore - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 306 (Tri.-Bang.) 2. We have heard both sides in the matter and find from the Notification that there is no prohibition to Indian Navy through subcontractors. There is no dispute with regard to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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-C.E. (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 time of clearance of such exempted goods which tantamount to non-availment of credit. This view is supported by various judgments cited by the ld. Counsel. Moreover as per the retrospective amendment made in Rule 6 vide Finance Act; the assessee is required to reverse the actual Cenv....