(Per : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) This Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ["the Act"] is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against order dated August 21, 2007 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad ["the Tribunal"] in Appeal No. E/405/2006, by which the Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee.
Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present Appeal.
After hearing Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Padmavati Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee and after going through the materials on record, we find that the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Bengalaru Tribunal in the case of M/s. BPCL v. CCE, Mangalore, reported in 2007 [78] RLT 414, wherein, it was laid down that benefit of notification cannot be denied in respect of warehoused goods, on withdrawal of warehousing facility, when the goods are otherwise exempted.
It appears that the Karnataka High Court has affirmed the said decision and in view of such fact, in the past, the Revenue did not press this Appeal.
Subsequently however, on an application of the Revenue, the present Appeal was restored vide order dated November 11, 2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court.
Mr.
Ravani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant tried to convince us that the factual difference in this case from the one relied upon by the Tribunal was that in that case, duty was exempted whereas in the case before us, the same is not exempted.
Our attention has been drawn to General Exemption No. 24 of the Notification No. 64/95-CE, dated March 16, 1995, wherein, at Sr. No. 3, it is specifically pointed out that all goods other than cigarettes if supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy or Coast Guard, are exempted.
Such being the position, we find that the Tribunal below rightly granted relief to the assessee and we find that no substantial question of law is involved in this Appeal. The Appeal is consequently dismissed.
[BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACTING CJ.] [J.B.PARDIWALA, J.] pirzada/-
Top