TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s framed the following substantial questions of law :- (I) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed a grave error by sustaining a demand of Central Excise on the basis of preserve findings by the Courts below? (II) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed a grave error by not considering the fact that admittedly the alleged quantity of goods was manufactured to be used by the United Nations or an International Organization approved by the Government of India? (III) Whether the Certificate As per Notification No. 108/95-C.E., dated 29-8-1995 has to be in the name of the assessee even though admittedly goods are manufactured and sold to a organization holding a certificate for usage by the United ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect has duly been approved by the Government of India, and (ii) if the said project has been approved by the Government of India for implementation by the Government of a State or a Union Territory, a certificate from the executive head of the Project Implementing Authority and countersigned by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary (Finance), as the case may be, in the concerned State Government or the Union Territory, that the said goods are required for the execution of the said project, and that the said project has duly been approved by the Government of India for implementation by the concerned State Government." 5. He contended that the present appellant-assessee has proved all requirements. He further contend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....47-IND duly approved by Government of India for Urban Infrastructure Development of six major cities of the State of Rajasthan. This certificate is being issued in pursuance of the requirement under Government of India (Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue) Notification No. 108/95, dated 28-8-1995 as amended upto date Excise Duty Exemption may be allowed against above referred material. (J.N. Golani) (Manoj Sharma, IAS) S E. Project Implementation Unit Project Director, RUIDP, Udaipur RUIDP, Jaipur (M.D. Kaurani) Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) Government of Rajasthan 6. He further contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the same and arrived at the finding as under : ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wadi. The contention of the assessee that in compliance of letter dated 26-10-2005 of the Range Superintendent, necessary documents and information were submitted in person vide letter dated 8-12-2005 is also not correct as the Range Officer in the draft show cause notice forwared vide letter dated 24-1-2006 has himself pointed out that no reply to letter dated 26-10-2005 has been received from the assessee. However, if it is admitted for the sake of argument that the assessee submitted the documents/information vide letter dated 8-12-2005 even than the conditions of the notification are not fulfilled as the goods in question were removed in the month of July 2004 and March 2005 and certificate was required to be produced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncluded between M/s. Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd., Bhiwadi and M/s. ANS Construction Ltd., only. Furthermore, the appellant has not informed to the adjudicating authority prior to 5-4-2006 that they had cleared the goods by claiming exemption under Notification No. 108/1995-C.E., dated 28-8-1995 on the bars of certificate which has already been produced by the Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd., Bhiwadi. I find that production of certificate is one of the conditions under Notification to ascertain the genuineness of the transaction and the requirement of the goods by the project. The above Notification stipulated that before clearance of the "said" goods, the manufacturer shall produce before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, a certificate issued under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the same are not in the name of the appellant and has been issued in the name of M/s. ANS Construction Ltd. The appellant has not explained as to how the certificate issued in the name of ANS Construction Ltd. Should be considered as proper and valid for the purpose of claiming duty exemption contained in the notification dated 28-8-1995. The facts involved in the decision cited by the Ld. Advocate are different from the facts of the present case inasmuch as in those decided cases the nexus was established between the parties to the contract to demonstrate that the goods supplied were actually used for the intended purpose. Since the certificate produced by the appellant has not been issued in its name, the decision cited by the Ld. Ad....