BAJAJ TEMPO LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, filed by M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 108/95 -CE is available to them.

(2.) SHRI S.A. Gundecha, Director of appellant company, submitted that the appellants manufacture motor vehicles; that they supply Temp Traveller Ambulances and Temp Trax Town & Country Vehicles to the Government of Karnataka, Health & Family Welfare Department for the Second State Health Systems Development Project, which was financed by an International Development Association and was approved by the Government; that they had filed a classification declaration under the provisions of Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules; that they had also addressed a communication to the Assistant Commissioner informing him about the supply of vehicles to the approved project and claimed exemption under Notification 108/95; that, subsequently, the matter was also discussed personality by their representative with the Assistant Commissioner; that the Commissioner, in the impugned order, has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty of equal amount on the ground that the requisite certificate, as mentioned in the Notification from the appropriate authority, was not produced prior to clearance of the impugned vehicles and as such the condition of the Notification was not fulfilled making them ineligible for the Notification; that the Commissioner has also held that the extended period of limitation for demanding duty is inviolable as, despite being fully aware of the fact that they were not in possession of valid certificate before clearances of the goods, they had misled the Department by submitting an invalid certificate with intention to evade payment of duty.

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments, Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, submitted that the benefit of Notification No. 108/95 is available subject to the condition that before clearance of the goods, the manufacturer produced before the Assistant Commissioner, a certificate from the Executive Head of the Project implementing authority and countersigned by the Principal Secretary; that the condition of the Notification is very specific that the said certificate has to be produced prior to the clearance of the goods and not subsequently; that as the certificate has been produced subsequently, the benefit of Notification, cannot be extended to the appellants.