TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing investigation, examination in respect of contractors/ construction companies were conducted by various jurisdictional preventive units across the country. Based on the said allegation, it is found that few of the hydraulic excavators procured from appellant M/s L&T have been withdrawn from the project, few are in the process of being withdrawn and others to be withdrawn once the project is completed. Based on the said show cause notice was issued on 08.05.2009 alleging that appellant have evaded Central Excise duty to the extent of Rs.11,70,90,398/-, education cess of Rs.23,41,808/- and secondary education cess of Rs.3,29,585/-. Appellant denied the allegations and specifically submitted that the procedure of supplying the goods to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal was filed by the respondent before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court which was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, respondent filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 22.02.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 27808/2020. Only thereafter, matter was considered for de novo adjudication and the appellant submitted that even for one year, the exemption can be denied only if goods are removed outside the projects and not based on a probability that goods can be removed out of the project. However without giving any specific finding on said issue, adjudication authority vide impugned order confirmed the demand for one year. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r are two distinct things. The present case stands on a par with the decisions referred to above. It therefore follows that the principles underlying S. 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure do not stand in the way of the petitioners in raising the question of liability to assessment before the Appellate Tribunal." 5. Ld. Counsel also relied the final order in the matter of M/s Tata Motors Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur reported in 2023-VIL-871-CESTAT-KOL-CE and submits that only if goods removed before completion of the project, the benefit of notification can be denied. 6. Learned D.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submits that entire issue was considered by this Tribunal and as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vs Collector of Customs & Another (Reported in 1980 (6) E.L.T 89 (Cal). 7. Heard both sides. Regarding scope of denovo adjudication, while remanding the matter to adjudication authority, this Tribunal has not considered the plea of appellant that they have not removed the goods before completion of the project and only held that "demand against the appellant can be sustained only for one year period which is within the period of limitation". Further while dismissing the revenue appeal, Hon'ble Supreme court also held that "the Tribunal has observed that the demand against the respondent could be sustained for a period of one year prior to the issuance of the notice to show cause". Hence considering the issue whether the appellant violated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r reported in 2023-VIL-871-CESTAT-KOL-CE and held that:- "15. We observe that the department has interpreted the Explanation 2 wrongly. The Explanation 2 would only mean that the goods brought into the project should not be withdrawn by the contractor during the course of execution of the project. After the project is completed the contractor is well within his right to withdraw the capital goods and machinery used in execution of the project, since it does not form part of the structure of the project. The department wrongly interpreted the Explanation 2 to mean that only the goods which are consumed in the project are eligible for the exemption. If such a interpretation is accepted, then no capital goods will be eligible for the exempti....