Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Jai Fasteners (P) Ltd vs Cc, Ce & St, Hyderabad-I on 23 August, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD
Division Bench
Court I
Appeal No. E/805/2009
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 37/2009 (H-I) CE dt. 22.05.2009 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-I), C, E & ST, Hyderabad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial)
Honble Sh. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s Jai Fasteners (P) Ltd.,
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
CC, CE & ST, Hyderabad-I
..Respondent(s)
Appearance
Sh. R. Muralidhar, Authorised Representative for the Appellant.
Sh. Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.
Coram:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial)
Honble Sh. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical)
Date of Hearing: 23.08.2016
Date of Decision: 23.08.2016
FINAL ORDER No._______________________
[Order per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar]
Facts of the case as put forth by appellant is as follows:
The appellants supplied goods to M/s MPPKVCL, as a sub-contractor, on payment of Excise Duty under Invoice Nos. 325 dt 10.09.2008 and 326 dt 26.09.2008. After being made aware that they were eligible to Excise Duty exemption in terms of Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.95 (as amended by Notification No. 4/99 dt. 11.2.1999), the appellants filed a refund claim for Rs. 47,628/-. The appellants submitted Certificate No. 001 dt. 21.04.2008 from M/s MPPKVCL, duly signed by the Secretary (Energy), Govt of MP, Secretary (Finance), Govt of MP and Executive Director of the Project Head. This Certificate complies with condition No. (c) (ii) of the Notification No.108/95. The Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the assessee has not produced the required certificate before clearance of the said goods as required under Notification No. 108/95-CE, but requested to condone this lapse ..... Since the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in terms of Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 as amended, I hereby reject the Refund claim. On appeal, the Commissioner (A) vide O-I-A No. 37/2009 dated 22.05.2009, rejected the appeal interalia for the reason: ..This Certificate is not in conformity with the conditions stipulated in the notification. Not only is that the project should be approved by the Central Govt but also a certificate countersigned by an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary to GOI in the line Ministry is required to be produced. As these crucial conditions are not satisfied, the exemption in terms of Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.95 has been rightly disallowed by the lower authority. Hence this appeal.
2. During the hearing, Ld. Counsel for appellant Sh. R. Muralidhar submitted that the requisite certificate was already issued by competent authority on 21.04.2008 before clearance of the goods, that even while filing the refund claim, a copy of the certificate had been submitted, which fact has even been acknowledged by original authority in his order.
3. Heard both sides.
4. We have perused the copy of the certificate issued under Notn. No. 108/95. The same is signed by Executive Head of the Project Implementing Authority and also by the Secretary (Energy), Government of Madhya Pradesh. Thus the certificate satisfies the requirements of the Notification No. 108/95-CE..
5. In the event, we are of the considered opinion that the production of certificate after the clearance of the goods is only a procedural lapse and will not vitiate its genuiness and acceptability for the purpose of clearances with benefit of Notn. No. 108/95 and by implication for the purposes of refund of duty paid by mistake .
6. In the result, appeal allowed with consequential benefit, if any.
(Operative part of this order was pronounced in court
on conclusion of the hearing)
(MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.)
MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
Jaya.
4