COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. LLOYD INSULATION INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this Appeal preferred by Revenue is whether excisable goods manufactured and removed by M/s. Lloyd Insulation India are eligible for the benefit of Exemption under Notification No. 64/95 -C.E., dated 16 -3 -95.

(2.) Shri Vikas Kumar, learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the respondents manufacture Rigid Polyurethane foam and articles thereof; that Notification No. 64/95 -C.E. provides exemption from payment of duty to the excisable goods if supplied as stores for consumption on Board of a vessel of the Indian Navy; that the respondents had availed of the exemption under the said Notification; that the goods were not supplied as a stores for consumption on Board a vessel of Indian Navy; that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has allowed the benefit of Notification to the respondents holding that any supplies made to the Indian Navy ships will be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 64/95 provided the goods so supplied are meant for consumption on board of such a vessel, relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Goa Paints and Allied Products v. CCE [2001 (127) E.L.T. 489 (Tri.)]. Learned Senior Departmental Representative mentioned that the clearance of excisable goods were effected by the respondents to different parties like M/s. Mazgaon Docks Ltd. etc., that the goods in question were not supplied to the Indian Navy directly and the issue stands settled by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bombay v. Moosa Hazi Patrawala [1999 (114) E.L.T. 620 (Tri.)] wherein also the respondents had not supplied the goods to Indian Navy but had supplied the goods to M/s. Voltas Ltd. The Tribunal has held that the benefit of Notification, No. 70/73 -C.E., dated 7 -5 -73 would not be available to the goods. He mentioned that Notification No. 70/73 -C.E. also provided exemption to excisable goods supplied as stores for consumption on Board a vessel of the Indian Navy. He also mentioned that the Appeal filed by M/s. Moosa Hazi Patrawala has been dismissed by the Supreme Court as reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. A82 (S.C.). He also relied upon the decision in the case of CCE v. Impreg and Insulations [1999 (112) E.L.T. 292 (Tri.)l and CCE, Chandigarh v. Leader Engineering Works, [2000 (122) E.L.T. 831 (Tri.)j wherein also the goods were supplied availing the benefit of Notification No. 64/95 to M/s. Mazgaon Docks Ltd., the Tribunal has held that the goods supplied to the ship builders are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 64/95 as the goods are not supplied to the Indian Navy as stores. He, therefore, contended that in view of the fact that decision in the case of Moosa Hazi Patrawala has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, the respondents are not eligible to the benefit of Notification.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri K.K. Shroff, learned Advocate, submitted that they are supplying Rigid Polyurethane foam, insulated Boards/secondary pipes to vessel of the Indian Navy which are already in existence; that the supplies are for replacement/refurnishing of ships of the Indian Navy; that the supplies are infact supplies as stores and consumption on board vessels of the Indian Navy; that therefore, the goods supplied by them qualify for the benefit of exemption; that in a similar issue, the Tribunal's Bench at Mumbai has allowed the Appeal filed by them; that the question of direct supply under Notification No. 54/95 is not envisaged; that the Notification only envisages the supply to the Indian Navy and not direct supply; that the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Departmental Representative in the case of Impreg Insulation and Moosa Hazi Patrawala has been distinguished by the Tribunal in the case of Goa Paint and Allied Products. Finally, he submitted that certain goods had gone directly to Indian Navy in respect of which the benefit of Notification would in any case will be available to the respondents.