CG Power & Industrial Solutions Ltd. Versus CGST, C.C. & C.E., Ujjain
Central Excise
2019 (1) TMI 969 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 6-12-2018
Excise Appeal Nos. E\/53165\/2018 [SM] – A\/53405\/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nPresent for the Appellant: Mr. Nitin Mehta, Advocate
\nPresent for the Respondent: Mr. P. R. Gupta, DR
\nORDER
\nPER: RACHNA GUPTA
\nPresent is an Appeal directed against the Order of Commissioner(Appeals) bearing No. 183-18-19 dated 28.06.2018. Facts relevant for impugned adjudication are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of signalling relay and were discharging their duty liability. However the appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 3,79,313\/- in terms of Notification No. 108\/95-Ex dated 13.10.1995 for the exemption from Central Excise duty paid on clearance of goods to a specified project authority approved by the Government of India i.e. Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. funded by As<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n refund application, an exemption certificate was duly filed. The details thereof fulfil all the requirements as have been wrongly held to be missing by the Commissioner(Appeals). Order accordingly prayed to be set aside, Appeal is prayed to be allowed. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n er this exemption certificate provides all the details as are required to be furnished by the appellant to seek the benefit of exemption Notification No. 108\/95 dated 20.08.1995 same, the relevant portion thereof has been referred by Commissioner (Appeals) in para 7.1 of the Order under challenge. Same is not reproduced here for the sake of brevity. However, from the said para itself the following conditions as are required to be fulfilled by the appellant for seeking benefit of the said exemption and the respective details from the exemption certificate as provided by the appellant are as follows: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" CG Power & Industrial Solutions Ltd. Versus CGST, C.C. & C.E., UjjainCentral Excise2019 (1) TMI 969 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 6-12-2018Excise Appeal Nos. E\/53165\/2018 [SM] – A\/53405\/2018-SM[BR]Central ExciseMRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Nitin Mehta, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. P. R. Gupta, DR … Continue reading “CG Power & Industrial Solutions Ltd. Versus CGST, C.C. & C.E., Ujjain”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16247","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16247","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16247"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16247\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16247"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16247"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16247"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Ld. DR while justifying the impugned Order has placed emphasis upon the Notification No. 108\/95 dated 28.08.1995 and also upon the various case laws of the Hon'ble Apex Court as is relied upon by the Commissioner(Appeals) to the effect that the exemption Notification has to be strictly construed. It is submitted that lack of information as is required under (ii)(c)(i) of the aforesaid Notification the Commissioner(Appeals) has been justified while rejecting the refund claim for the noticed deficiency. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be allowed.
\n5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, it is observed as follows: Alongwith the Application praying for refund following documents were furnished by the appellant:
\n(i) Co<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nS. No.
\nCondition in Para 1(c) (i) of Notification No. 108\/95-CE
\nCompliance in Project Authority Certificate [PAC] dated 17.03.2015, issued by Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd.
\n1.
\nGoods are supplied to a Project financed by ADB or any international organisation
\nGoods were supplied to the Project of doubling of Raipur-Titagarh rail line in East Coastal Railway, which is financed by the Asian Deve<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n