- (1.) By way of this appeal, the Department has challenged the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi [2014 (310) E.L.T. 755 (Tri.-Del.)], whereby the appeal preferred by the Department was dismissed and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was confirmed.
(2.) Counsel for the appellant Mr. Singhi contended that in view of the well settled provisions of law, the Circular dated 28-8-1995 was already interpreted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the case of Dee Development Engineers Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. - 2010 (254) E.L.T. 412 (P and H) and particularly Paragraphs 16 and 18, which reads as under : "16. The argument of learned Counsel for the assessee that since M/s. Thermax Babcock and Wilcox Limited, Pune had awarded as purchase order to the assessee for supply of steam generator and its accessories, directly to M/s. Kakatia Cement Sugar and Industries Ltd., Hyderabad, so it (assessee) is entitled to the exemption clause on the basis of certificate issued in favour of M/s. Thermax Babcock and Wilcox Limited, Pune, is not only devoid of merit, but misplaced as well, because it is not a matter of dispute that the certificate (Annexure A2) by Project Implementing Authority was issued in the name of supplier M/s. Thermax Babcock and Wilcox Limited, Pune and not in favour of the assessee, authorizing it, to remove all the goods under the notification (Annexure A1) and the goods were not supplied, directly to the project financed by Asian Development Bank. Therefore, there is no ambiguity in the notification (Annexure A1) and contrary arguments of learned Counsel for the assessee "stricto sensu" deserve to be and are hereby repelled in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 18. Accordingly, it is held that as no certificate was issued by the Project Implementing Authority approved by the Government of India in favour of the assessee, therefore, it (assessee) cannot claim exemption from duty on the basis of certificate (Annexure A2) issued in favour of the supplier M/s. Thermax Babcock and Wilcox Limited, Pune." 2.1. Therefore, he contended that the matter requires to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law which have been framed by him and which reads as under : "(i) Whether as per the case the learned Tribunal is correct in law in concluding that all the conditions for exemption were satisfied when the eligibility criteria of supply to the project were fulfilled? (ii) Whether the meaning of the term "supplied to the projects" can be expanded to include "supply to the other parties" even when such other parties use the goods for the project? (iii) Whether the exemption would be available to goods supplied to the other parties especially when the goods supplied have a life span and utility far beyond the duration of the project and the preponderance of probability is that the goods will be withdrawn from the project and put to uses covered by the exemption? (iv) Any other question of law as this Hon'ble High Court may formulate in the facts and circumstances of the case."
(3.) Counsel for the respondent, Mr. P.K. Kasliwal, contended that in view of the preliminary objections and the reply filed by him, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.;