Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Engineering Equipment ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 20 June, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE Final Order No. 22387 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: E/Stay/438/2012 in E/691/2012-DB Appeal(s) Involved: E/691/2012-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 12/2012 dated 25/01/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore] M/s ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS NO.131, 8TH MAIN, III PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE-560 058 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-II PB 5400 CR BUIDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE, -560001 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. PRADYUMNA G.H., ADV. NO. 244, 1ST CROSS, Banashankari 3rd Stage, 2nd Block BANGALORE 560085. For the Appellant Mr. S. Teli, A.R. For the Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ________________________________________ Date of Hearing: 20/06/2014 Date of Decision: 20/06/2014 Per B.S.V. MURTHY Appellant is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of parts of machinery. The present proceedings have arisen because of the stand taken by the Revenue that the clearance of excisable goods made by the appellant without payment of Central Excise duty to M/s BEML during the period from February 2009 to December 2009 was incorrect since the exemption under Notification No. 63/95 dated 16.3.1995 was not admissible to them. This stand has been taken since according to the Revenue, the exemption is available only when then specified manufacturers supply to the Ministry of Defence and while M/s BEML is one of the specified manufacturers, the appellant was not one specified manufacturers mentioned in the Notification.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The claim of the appellant is that there is no dispute that M/s BEML is one of the specified manufacturers and it was as per the instructions of M/s BEML that the appellant did not collect the Central Excise duty on the items manufactured and cleared by them. It is also submitted that it is not the case of the department that the items cleared by the appellant were not cleared by M/s BEML to the Ministry of Defence. Only on the ground that the goods were not directly supplied by the appellant, duty could not have been demanded and thus ignoring the legislative intent that the goods meant for Defence services would be free from excise duty burden.
4. There is no doubt that Notification No. 63/95 provides exemption for goods supplied by specified manufacturers and the appellant is not one such specified manufacturer. When the Notification is clear, the Tribunal cannot go into legislative intent and interpret the Notification otherwise. Moreover, the decision of Tribunal in the case of Turbotech Precision Engg. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise-II, Bangalore [2013 (298) E.L.T. 56 (Tri.-Bang.)] is applicable to the facts of this case and in that case, it was held that supply of items made to vendors and items ultimately meant for supply to the Defence Ministry are not covered by Notification. In that case also the issue was similar and the goods had been supplied by the appellant to M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) which was one of the specified manufacturers. Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal against the appellant, following the precedent decision, the appeal has to be rejected and, accordingly, is rejected.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER /vc/