TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s concern eligibility for exemption under notification No.64/95-CE, dated 16.03.1995, as amended, for goads cleared to the programme SAMYUKTA for the period 1.06.2006 to 21.8.2006. In appeal 810/2008, the impugned order, inter-alia has demanded duty amount of Rs. 51,97,951/- with interest thereon in respect of one VHF photo type system and one UHF photo type system cleared vide invoice No.90020, dated 31.07.2006 by appellant to Defence Electronics Research Laboratory (DLRL)) without payment of duty under notification No.64/95-CE, dated 16.3.1995. Hence appeal E/810/2008 by denial of exemption benefit and demand of duty liability. 3. Department is aggrieved the non-imposition of penalty by the adjudicating authority under rule 25 of Central....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08 after 97 days. This case was dropped by Commissioner (Appeals) by his order-in-appeal No.3/2010(H-III) CE, dated 28.4.2010. No appeal seems to have been filed by Revenue on this order. 5. In respect of departmental appeal No. Ld. Counsel states that for these very reasons, there cannot be any penalty imposable on the assessee. 6. On the other hand, AR Shri Das Thavanam, on behalf of department, in respect of appeal No.810/2008 submits the confirmation of duty liability is fully justified, and at the same time prays that appeal of Department No. E/857/2008 seeking imposition of penalty may be allowed. 7. Heard bath sides and have gone through the facts: 8. The parent notification No. 64/95-CE, dt. 16.03.1995 inter-alia exemption centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the interim period. It however appears to be reason that the Government have continued extending validity of the parent notification on the exemption even beyond 21.08.2009, hence the intention to extend the exemption for the programme SAMYUKTA would not have ceased for the short period of 2½ months. 9. A similar issue had come up before Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.I.L Limited Vs. CCE, Meerut reported in [2005(181) ELT 359 (SC)]. The facts were that pumps as well as part thereof which were used far manufacture of power pumps exempted from levy of excise duty since 1978. However, while issuing a consolidated notification No.46/94, incorporating earlier notification dt. 01-03-1994, part of power driven pumps which all along have bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and view of demand being made by the Department, a representation was made by the industries and being satisfied, the Central Government issued a clarificatory Notification No.95/94 org 25-4-1994. It was not a new notification granting exemption for the first time in respect of parts of power-down pumps to be used in the factory for manufacture of pumps but clarified the position and made the position explicit which was implicit. 10. We find that the ratio of W.P.I.L. Limited judgment is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present appeal. We also find that for subsequent period i.e. 01.12.2017 to 16.03.2008 which also was not covered by notification till issue of amended notification 15/2008 CE, dt. 17.03.2008, in similar proceedin....