Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Spic Organics Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 3 November, 2005
ORDER T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)
Page 0108
1. Final ORDER NO. 1569/2005 DT. 3/11/2005 Certified on 26-12-2005 This is an appeal filed against order in appeal No. 101/2000 dated 17.10.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai.
2. Brief facts of the care are as follows:
The appellants cleared Polyols, an excisable commodity manufactured by them to M/s. Inalsa Limited without payment of duty under Notification No. 108/95 dated 28.8.95 during the period from 3.8.96 to 22.12.97. M/s. Inalsa Ltd. in turn, used the said goods for the manufacture of vaccine carriers and supplied the same to a project of UNICEF. The appellants filed "173 B declaration" claiming the benefit of the above mentioned Notification. While finalising the assessment in July, 1998 the department took the view that the appellants are not entitled for exemption and directed them to pay duty. Accordingly, the appellants paid an amount of Rs. 4,64,434/- on 24.7.98 under protest and filed a refund claim dated 17.12.98. The refund claim was rejected. The appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the lower authority. Hence the appellants have come before this Tribunal for relief.
2. Shri Naszeer Abdullah, ld. Counsel appeared for the appellants and Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, ld. SDR for the Revenue.
3. Ld. Counsel submitted Notification No. 108/95 exempts the goods which are supplied to the project financed by the UNICEF. He said that the benefit is denied to them on the ground that they have not supplied the goods directly to the UNICEF project. Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pondicherry wherein it has been held that the benefit of Page 0109 Notification No. 108/95 is not deniable on the ground that the goods were not supplied to the Project Implementing Authorities, but to Contractors of project who would continue to be owners, and would continue to possess the same even after the completion of project. He said that the present case stands even on a stronger footing as the goods supplied would ultimately be owned by the beneficiaries of the UNICEF Project.
ii) Ld. Counsel referred to another Notification No. 49/94-CE (NT) dated 22.9.94 issued under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules providing exemption for clearance of goods sold to manufacturer who uses the same as input in the manufacture of final product which are exported. The goods, however have to be supplied on the basis of an advance intermediate license. The appellants company had given copy of the special imprest license issued to M/s. Inalsa to the department. M/s. Inalsa had supplied the products as deemed export to the UNICEF and have completed all supplies for export of the products. Therefore, the benefit of Notification No. 49/94 also would be available to them. But the Assistant Commissioner denied the benefit of Notification No. 49/94 on the ground that substantial compliance of technical procedures is not followed. Therefore, they availed the benefit of Notification No. 108/95 in which such procedures were not required. The ld. Counsel also emphasised the point that the clearances were made between August 1996 and October 1997. The duty was remitted in July 1998 on the directions of the department. The assessment for the clearances was finalised on 24.2.95 itself. Hence the demand of duty, if any, should have been confined to 6 months from the date of clearance as there are no grounds for invoking extended period.
4. Ld. SDR reiterated the findings contained in the impugned order.
5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The fact that the goods have been sent to M/s. Inalsa who in turn manufactured the vaccine carriers and supplied to the UNICEF is not in dispute. There is no strong reason for denying the benefit of Notification No. 108/95 to the Appellants. The case law relied on by ld. Counsel holds that the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied on the ground that the goods were not directly supplied to the Project Implementing Authorities, but to the Contractors. In view of this the denial of the benefit is not justifiable. In the circumstances, the appellants are rightly entitled for the refund. Moreover, there is no justification also for invocation of the longer period in demanding the duty as there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. In the circumstances, the impugned Order in Appeal does not have any merit. We allow this appeal with consequential relief, if any.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)