Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Akzo Nobel Coatings (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 17 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(184)ELT306(TRI-BANG)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The appellants are challenging the correctness of OIO No. 32/02, dated 31-12-2002 by which the appellants have been denied the benefit of Sl. No. 3 of the Notification No. 64/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1996 which provides for exemption from payment of Central Excise Duty on all the goods other than cigarettes if supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy or Coast guard. The Commissioner has noted that the goods have been not directly received by the Indian Navy but are received/cleared to M/s. Mazgoon Dock Ltd., (MDL) and to Western India Shipyard, Goa and they received the contract from Indian Navy and in turn they have received the supplies from the appellants. There is no dispute about the receipt of all the goods from their contractors of Indian Navy namely M/s. MDL and M/s. Western Indian Shipyard, Goa. The Indian Navy has also issued an end use certificate dated 7-12-2000. This certificate clearly certifies that the goods purchased by M/s. Mazgaon Dock Ltd., Mumbai are from M/s. Akzo Nobel Coating (I) Ltd., against supply Order 13845, dated 17-12-2000 for supply "As stores for consumption on Board a Vessel of Indian Navy Yard No. 13845". The Certificate also certifies that the conditions stipulated in the Central Excise Notification No. 70/77, dated 7-5-1977, the condition laid down at Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 64/95, dated 16-3-1995 is satisfied in respect of supply of goods vide this purchase order. The Lt. Commander for Warship Production Superintendent, Indian Naval base has also issued consumption certificate/end use certificate to the appellant that they have received all the goods from Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visak. Further certificate has been issued by the same authority to certify that the components procured by M/s. MDL vide MDL Purchase Order placed at Encl from M/s. Akzo Nobel Coatings India Pvt Ltd., were purchased for Indian Naval ships. All the details of purchasers and the certificates have been corelated. The only ground relied by the Commissioner as noted is that the supplies are not directly made by the appellants but has been reached through the Indian Navy's Contractors.
2. We have heard both sides in the matter and find from the Notification that there is no prohibition for supplies to Indian Navy through subcontractors. There is no dispute with regard to the receipt of the goods by the Indian Navy and they have issued certificate certifying about the receipt of the goods in respect of purchase orders placed by the Indian Navy to M/s. MDL and M/s. Western Indian Shipyard, Goa. We find from the citations referred to the appellant, that the Mumbai Bench in the case of Goa Paints and Allied Products v. CCE, Goa [2001 (127) E.L.T. 489] in identical facts and circumstances pertaining to the same Notification and supplies made to Indian Navy through sub-contractor has been approved by the Tribunal and the benefit has been extended. In the cited case, the goods were supplied by the appellants therein to M/s. MDL and M/s. Goa Shipyards Ltd. who in turn supplied the goods to Indian Navy. In terms of the said Notification, the Tribunal approved the said supplies and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) Orders denying the benefit in the matter. We find that this judgment of the Tribunal applies with in all fours to the present case. It has also been approved by the Apex Court as noted in [2001 (129) E.L.T. A308] by dismissing the Revenue Appeal. In view of this Tribunal ruling having been approved by the Apex Court, we find that the contra orders by the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Leader Engineering Works [2000 (122) E.L.T. 831 (Tri)] and CCE v. Haji Patrawala Pvt Ltd. [1999 (114) E.L.T. 620] has no applicability. Following the ratio of the decision in the case of Goa paints and Allied products cited above, which has been approved by the Apex Court, the impugned Order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.