TIOL-DDT 2684 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="3"><s><strong><font size="2"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="3"><s><strong><font size="2"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=23157"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/limca_book2015_1.jpg" alt="DDT in Limca Book of Records - Third Time in a row" width="300" height="148" hspace="5" border="0" align="right" ></a></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></s></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></s></font></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">TIOL-DDT 2684</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
14 09 2015<br>
Monday</font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><em><font size="3">Central Excise - Recovery of Refund -Section 11A not mandatory? </font></em></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THIS</strong> is a refund claim pertaining to the excise duty paid during the period 1.10.1975 to 8.1.1976. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Panyam Cements and Minerals Industries Limited</em> (PCMIL) filed a price list effective from 1.10.1975 in respect of Grey Portland cement and claimed the deduction of packing charges from the assessable value on the ground that the packing material is of durable nature and is returnable as provided. (in those days, price lists had to be filed by the assessees and they were to be approved by the Assistant Commissioner before clearance.) The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner did not accept the exclusion of packing charges from the assessable value and the price list was approved including the packing charges thereon. PCMIL after receipt of the approved price list started paying duty under protest. Though they paid the duty under protest, thereafter, they did not take any steps to challenge the approved price list by filing appeal questioning the inclusion of packing charges from the assessable value. Thereby the duty payable came to be crystallized as approved by the Assistant Commissioner. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On 7.5.1985, PCMIL filed the refund claim for an amount of Rs.17,68,481.56 ps., claiming the said amount has been paid as excise duty on packing charges during the period 1.10.1975 to 8.1.1976 on the ground the packing material i.e., gunny bags are of durable nature and is returnable within the meaning of Section 4(4)(d)(1) of the Act and thus the value is deductible from assessable value. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Assistant Commissioner granted the refund by an order dated 19.08.1986. As usual, the department went in appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the department and set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order. He also directed the assessee to pay back the amount of refund which was in the meantime paid to the assessee. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee was not entitled to claim refund of the amounts paid during 1.10.1975 to 8.1.1976. However, the Tribunal held that the said amounts were not recoverable from the assessee on the ground that no proceedings were initiated under Section 11A of the Act. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Department appealed to the High Court in 2005, which was decided by the High Court recently. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The substantial questions of law raised by the department were: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>1. Whether an appeal can be filed before the appellate authority under Section 35E of the Act and the recovery of erroneous refund can be based on the decision of the appellate authority; </em></font></p>
<p align="center"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">or </font></em></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Whether show cause notice is required to be issued within the time limit laid down in Section 11 A of the Act for recovery of such erroneously granted refund? </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And the High Court added another question: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Whether in the fact and circumstances of the case, the resort to Section 11A of the Act is mandatory for recovering the refund granted pursuant to the adjudication order passed under Section 11B of the Act which adjudication order subsequently came to be declared as unsustainable. </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Counsel for the department submitted that: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. the Tribunal has erred in holding that the independent proceedings under Section 11A of the Act are required to be initiated for recovering the sum of money which has been refunded to the assessee in the process of adjudicating claim under Section 11B of the Act in spite of the fact that on merits the Tribunal had found that the respondent was not entitled to such refund. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. in the set of facts, the department is not seeking to recover erroneously refunded duty amount but was seeking to recover the duty amount refunded on account of the adjudication order passed on 19.9.1986 which order came to be set aside in the appeal proceedings. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. In other words, the recovery was sought to be made by way of restitution and putting back the parties in the same position before passing the adjudication order. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. the very refund claim was not maintainable and the same could not have been entertained by the Assistant Commissioner after a long lapse of time and thus the alleged exercise of power by the Assistant Commissioner under Section11B of the Act was itself erroneous and the said aspect stands confirmed by the orders of the appellate authorities which orders have become final. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. Inasmuch as the very adjudication order holding that the respondent was not entitled to refund of the amount came to be set aside and the amount is recoverable from the respondent and the provisions of Section 11A have no application in such situations. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The assessee's counsel submitted that: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. the scope of the appeal is limited to the questions of law which have been raised by the department, particularly in the facts of the present case. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. it is impermissible for the department to resort to the provisions of Section 35E of the Act for recovering erroneously refunded duty amount and thus independent Section 11A proceedings are required to be initiated. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. the only way to recover the erroneously refunded duty amount is under the provisions of Section 11A of the Act and there are no other provisions in the Act. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. In that view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal is sustainable. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court after referring to the various Rules and sections of the Act applicable during the relevant time observed that,<em> the real question that is required to be considered is the validity or otherwise of the refund order granted by the Assistant Commissioner on 19.09.1986. In the refund order, the Assistant Commissioner went on to decide the issue the validity or otherwise of the duty demanded as if the same was in issue, which could have been done by him only in the process of considering the protest petition filed under Rule 233B read with Rules 173B and 173CC. In other words, the consideration of refund application was erroneous as the same was not maintainable. The Appellate Commissioner rightly set aside the same which also came to be confirmed by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the refund of money which has been made to the respondent was in the process of adjudicating his claim under Section 11B of the Act. A careful analysis of the Sections 11A and 11B of the Act would leave no manner of doubt that there is an adjudication process involved in the processing of the applications made under Sections 11A and 11B of the Act and further the orders passed under Sections 11A and 11B of the Act are appealable. The determination of an application made under Section 11B of the Act would result in the entitlement of an applicant for refund of any excise duty paid. If a very determination does not result in declaration of entitlement of refund any money paid in obedience to an order by an authority in the process of adjudication of such claims cannot be termed as granting of erroneous refund. Such payment would fall in the category of implementation of an order, subject to finality of such order. In other words, such refund would be outside the scope of the erroneous refunds contemplated under Section 11A of the Act. In a way Section 11A and 11B of the Act operate in two different streams</em>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court compared the situation to a civil proceedings of money suit. Pending adjudication of an appeal amount deposited / paid in honouring the judgment and decree would have been repaid back without there being any requirement of a separate suit. Present facts of the case are similar to the above illustration. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court further observed that<em> in the light of the conclusion arrived at that Sections 11A and 11B of the Act are two independent provisions and parameters which are required to be considered in the process of application under Sections 11A and 11B of the Act being totally different and independent there is no interconnection between the same. The orders passed under both the Sections 11A and 11B of the Act are amenable for appeal and further appeal to the higher forums. There is no warrant for one to conclude for implementing the orders passed under Section 11B of the Act recourse is to be taken to the provisions of Section 11A of the Act</em>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, the High Court answered all the three questions in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The assessee is now required to pay back to the Government the amount of refund it received in 1986 - unless of course, the case is taken to the Supreme Court. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The assessee is not required to pay any interest. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Some dates in this case are interesting: </font></p>
<table width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Duty paid for the period </font></td>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1.10.1975 to 8.1.1976 </font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Refund Claim filed on </font></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">7.5.1985 </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">(after 10 years of duty payment) </font></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Show Cause Notice issued on </font></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">17.8.1986 </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">(after 15 months of getting the refund claim) </font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Refund order passed on </font></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">19.8.1986 - </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">two days after the notice was issued. </font></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Order of the High Court </font></td>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">14.08.2015 </font></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The same High Court passed a similar order 16 years ago - I covered that issue in DDT ten years ago - <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MjMyMw==" target="_blank"><strong>DDT 167 28 07 2005</strong></a>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In that case, the High Court had made an observation, "</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em><font color="#FF0000" style="background-color:#F3DBCF">Legal ingenuity knows no bounds. It baffles an ordinary person whether the pleas such as those put forward in the present case could be available at all. The petitioners having got the refund pursuant to the judgment of this court which was later on reversed by the Supreme Court tries to resist the move of the Excise Department to recover back the amount refunded to it</font></em>.</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interestingly, the question as to whether the cost of returnable gunny bags is includible in the value of excisable goods is not yet settled as can be seen from the Supreme Court decision recently reported by us in <em>Tata Chemicals Ltd.</em> <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTA1NDA0" target="_blank">(2015-TIOL-177-SC-CX)</a></strong>. Also see <strong>DDT <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MjQzNDE=" target="_blank">2658/07.08.2015</a></strong>. So, in all probability, this case will celebrate its golden jubilee in a decade from now! </font></p>
<p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please see <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=MTA2NTMy" target="_blank">2015-TIOL-2127-HC-AP-CX</a></font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><em><font color="#006600">CESTAT Allahabad Bench Functional? </font></em></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> CESTAT President has transferred Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial), CESTAT, Mumbai to Allahabad. He is asked to report for duty at CESTAT Allahabad by 01.10.2015.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CESTAT Registrar had informed the Allahabad High Court on 7.9.2015 that the regular functioning of the Regional Bench at Allahabad will start from 1st October, 2015.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Registrar had also told the Court that the circuit Bench of the Tribunal will sit at Allahabad from 14th September to 18th September, 2015. Accordingly a Circuit Bench will also be sitting at Allahabad from today till Friday.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What happens to Hyderabad and Chandigarh benches?</font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><em><font color="#006600">Exemption to Ordnance factories - Confusion in field formations and trade</font></em></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>VIDE</strong> Notification No 23/2015 CE dated 30.04.2015 (w.e.f 01.06.2015) , two old Notifications in Central Excise, i.e., 62/95 and 63/95 have been amended. In Notification No 62/95 CE, the following entries of exemption were omitted:</font></p>
<table width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. </font></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">All goods </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <em><font color="#FF0000">[Sl.No. 1 is omitted with effect from 1st June, 2015 vide Notification No. 23/2015-CX., dated 30-04-2015] </font></em></font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If produced in Ordnance factories belonging to the Central Government and intended for consumption by the members of the Armed Forces of the Union or by such Ordnance factories. </font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6. </font></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Arms and Ammunition falling under Chapter 93</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <em><font color="#FF0000">[Sl.No. 6 is omitted with effect from 1st June, 2015 vide Notification No. 23/2015-CX., dated 30-04-2015] </font></em></font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If (i) produced in Ordnance factories and supplied to the Police Forces of the States or the Union Territories; and (ii) in each case, before the clearance of the said goods an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Home of the concerned State or Union territory/Home Department of the concerned State or Union territory recommends grant of the exemption indicating full description and quantity of the said goods to be supplied to the said Police Forces of the States or Union Territories. </font></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, after this amendment, the above goods manufactured by the ordnance factories became dutiable and the exemption is not allowed.</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Similarly, in Notification No 63/95, the following entries were omitted: </font></p>
<table width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. </font></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">All goods </font></p>
<p><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>[Sl.No. 2 is omitted with effect from 1st June, 2015 vide Notification No. 23/2015-CX., dated 30-04-2015] </em></font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If manufactured by the following units and are for supply to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes :- <br>
(i) Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. <br>
(ii) Bharat Electronics Limited. <br>
(iii) Bharat Dynamics Limited. <br>
(iv) National Instruments Limited, Calcutta. <br>
(v) National Aerospace Laboratories. <br>
(vi) Mishra Dhatu Nigam. <br>
(vii) Bharat Earth Movers Limited.<br>
</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(viii) Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. </font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">16. </font></td>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(I) Pistol 9 mm and Rifle 7.62 mm SLR falling under chapter 93 </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(II) Parts and components of (I) above<br>
</font><em><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">[Sl.No. 2 is omitted with effect from 1st June, 2015 vide Notification No. 23/2015-CX., dated 30-04-2015] </font></em></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If, - (i) manufactured by M/s. Bharat Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad and supplied to the Armed Forces of the Union and Police Forces of the States or the Union territories; and (ii) before the clearance of the said goods, in each case, an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs recommends grant of this exemption indicating the full description and quantity of the said goods to be supplied to the said force. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> If produced in - </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> (a) Bharat Dynamics Limited; or <br>
(b) Ordnance factories belonging to the Central Government and supplied to Bharat Dynamics Limited for use in the manufacture of goods specified at S. No. 16(1) above. </font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MjM1MDk=" target="_blank">DDT 2589 /01.05.2015</a></font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">However, there is one more exemption Notification which also needed an amendment, but the authorities have lost sight of the same at the time of amending the above two Notifications. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No 64/95 CE dated 16.03.1995 provides exemption to parts of motor vehicles supplied to Central Government Ordnance factories for the purpose of manufacture of vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of the Schedule. Sl No 6 of the Notification reads: </font></p>
<table width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6. </font></td>
<td valign="top"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Parts of motor vehicles falling under chapter 45,48/68,73, 85,87 or motor vehicles in completely knocked down or semi knocked down form </font></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If,-</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) used in a Central Government Ordnance Factory for the manufacture of vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of the said Schedule; and </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) such use is elsewhere than in the factory of the production of such parts, the procedure set out in the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001, is followed. </font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Obviously after the amendments made vide Notification No 23/2015 CE, the ordnance factories are required to pay duty on all goods manufactured by them. So, even if these parts are supplied duty free, there is no exemption to finished goods manufactured by the Ordnance factories. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It appears that there are some doubts as to what needs to be done in cases where parts of motor vehicles are supplied by one ordnance factory to another ordnance factory. In such cases, the supplying ordnance factory can avail the exemption under Notification No 64/95 CE.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC should consider issuing a clarification as doubts are being expressed by departmental officers. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Tomorrow with more <strong>DDT</strong></font></p>
<p><strong><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice day.</font></strong></p>
<p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mail your comments to </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="mailto:vijaywrite@tiol.in"><strong>vijaywrite@tiol.in </strong></a></font></p>
</body>
</html>