EXCIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. CESTAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We have also considered the order passed by the learned Tribunal as well as by the Commissioner (Appeal-I), Central Excise, Kolkata. It appears from the fact that the petitioner should get the benefit under the Notification No. 108/95-C.E. dated 28-08-95 if the project is financed by an International Organization. Admittedly, e ven before us it was submitted that the Japan Bank was not an International Organization. It has been stated in the said Notification No. 108/95-C.E. that it must be an intern ational Organization. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise also informed the petitioner by their letter dated 31st July, 2000 as follows:

(2.) Therefore, it has been specifically stated by the said Authority that the permission was granted subject to the Notification No. 108/95.

(3.) The other point tried to be urged before us that the show cause notice was issued after 2 years. Admittedely, it appears from the order so passed by the Commissioner (Appeal -I.) that appellant petitioner tried to mislead the department that the goods were supplied to a Project of State Government which was funded by an International Organization which is also mentioned in the said order and further confirmed by the learned Tribunal.