Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 12 June, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI Appeal No. E/118/2006 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.63/2005 (M-II) dt. 13.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai] Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Respondent
Appearance:
None For the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM :
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing / decision : 12.06.2017 FINAL ORDER No. 40931 / 2017 Per Bench The present appeal is against the OIA No.63/2005 dt. 13.12.2005.
2. Appellant is a manufacturer of medicines falling under CETH 3003.00. During the month of June 2003, appellant made certain clearances to U.P. Health System Development Project, Lucknow and claimed exemption under Notification No.108/95 dt. 28.08.1995. In terms of this notification, the goods are entitled to the exemption, if it is intended to be supplied to a project financed by World Bank/Asian Development Bank/any other international organization. The notification further specified that a certificate to this effect from one of the authorities specified in the notification is to be produced to the jurisdictional authorities. Since the appellant could not produce the said certificate as required in terms of notification ibid, Central Excise duty involved in this case amounting to Rs.4,29,841/- has been demanded along with interest. The order of original authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) except for setting aside the penalty imposed. The present appeal has been filed on the ground that appellant should be granted the benefit of Notification No.108/95 even in the absence of such certificate inasmuch as the goods have indeed been supplied to a project financed by world bank.
3. With the above background, we heard Shri S.Govindarajan, Ld. D.R. None appeared for the appellant.
4. Since the issue is very old, case is taken up for decision even in the absence of representation on behalf of the appellant.
5. The dispute is with reference to the benefit of Notification No.108/95 dt. 28.08.1995. Both the authorities below have recorded that the appellant has failed to produce the certificate as required under the notification from one of the authorities specified therein. Even before this Tribunal, the appellant has failed to submit the required certificate. Since the mandatory condition specified in the notification as a requirement for grant of the benefit has not been fulfilled, we find no infirmity in the impugned order denying such benefit.
In view of the above, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in open court
on 12.06.2017)
(V.Padmanabhan) (Sulekha Beevi C.S)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
gs
4
Appeal No.E/118/2006