Exemption benefit based on exemption certificate available to parts of helicopters

Taneja Aerospace and Aviation Limited Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)

CESTAT Chennai held that Armour Panels and Stretcher Assembly which are parts of helicopters are eligible for exemption based on exemption certificate issued in terms of Notification No. 63/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995.

Facts-

The appellant has cleared the goods viz., Armour Panels and Stretcher Assembly which are parts of helicopters without payment of duty to M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. [HAL] based on the exemption certificates issued in terms of Notification No. 63/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995. Such clearances were made during the period from 19.03.2009 to 29.12.2011 under invoices, which were duly reflected in their ER-1 returns.

As the duty exemption under Notification No. 63/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995 is available only for the goods manufactured by HAL and other specified units and not for suppliers to HAL, a Show Cause Notice came to be issued for wrong availment of the exemption Notification benefit invoking extended period. After due process of adjudication, confirming the demand, interest and imposition of penalty vide Order-in-Original No. 4/2014 (CE) dated 25.03.2014 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, the appellant came in appeal before this forum.

Conclusion-

In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Datasol Innovative Labs [2017 (349) ELT 13] by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, allowing the exemption under Notification No. 63/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995 to the suppliers of HAL. In the said case, the Tribunal held that the assessee (Datasol) is eligible for the benefit of exemption on the basis of the certificate issued by CSIO / Aeronautical Development Agency. The issue of limitation was also held in favor of assessee.

The appellant has cleared the impugned goods on the basis of the exemption certificates given by the officials of M/s. HAL and all the details were furnished in the invoices and in the ER-1 returns. These exemption certificates have certified that these goods are meant for ALH Project and would be used by HAL for ALH Project and would be supplied to the Ministry of Defence for their use. As such, no suppression with an intent to evade duty is attributable to the appellant. So, the demand of duty invoking extended period is not legal and so not sustainable.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER

M/s. Taneja Aerospace and Aviation Limited (the appellant herein) has challenged the Order-in-Original No. 4/2014 (CE) dated 25.03.2014 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai confirming a demand of duty of Rs.80,24,009/-under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and also for imposing penalty under Section 11AC (a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2.1 The facts in brief are that the appellant has cleared the goods viz., Armour Panels and Stretcher Assembly which are parts of helicopters without payment of duty to M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. [HAL] based on the exemption certificates issued in terms of Notification No. 63/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995. Such clearances were made during the period from 19.03.2009 to 29.12.2011 under invoices, which were duly reflected in their ER-1 returns.

2.2 As the duty exemption under Notification No. 63/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995 is available only for the goods manufactured by HAL and other specified units and not for suppliers to HAL, a Show Cause Notice dated 12.09.2013 came to be issued for wrong availment of the exemption Notification benefit invoking extended period. After due process of adjudication, confirming the demand, interest and imposition of penalty vide Order-in-Original No. 4/2014 (CE) dated 25.03.2014 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, the appellant came in appeal before this forum.

3.1 The main issue that is involved in this appeal is whether the appellant is eligible for the duty exemption benefit of Notification No. 63/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995 for their clearances of Armoured Panels and Stretcher Assembly to HAL, Bangalore.

3.2 Notification No. 63/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995 reads as follows:-

“Goods for defence purposes or other projects

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts, goods specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed, and falling under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), subject to the conditions, if any, specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table, from the whole of –

(i) the duty of excise leviable thereon which is specified in the said Schedule; and

(ii) the additional duty of excise leviable under the second mentioned Act on goods specified against S. No.1 of the said Table :

Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to goods specified against S. No. 16 of the said Table on or after the 1st day of April, 1999.

Explanation. – For the purposes of this notification, the expression, –

(i) “prison” means any jail or place used permanently or temporarily under the general or special orders of a State Government for the detention of prisoners and includes, –

(a) any place which has been declared by a State Government by general or special order to be a subsidiary jail; and

(b) any reformatory, borstal institution or other insitution of a like nature;

(ii) “mine” has the meaning assigned to it in clause (j) of section 2 of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952);

(iii) “narcotic drugs” and “psychotropic substance” shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them as defined in clause (xiv) and clause (xxiii) of section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985);

(iv) “kits for testing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances” means kits consisting of chemical reagents in small bottles for testing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances manufactured by M/s. Hindustan Antibiotics Limited, Pimpri, including test tubes, droppers, test plates and similar other accessories supplied with such kits;

(v) “Armed Forces of the Union” means the Central Reserve Police Force, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, the Special Services Bureau, the Border Security Force, the Central Industrial Security Force and the National Security Guard maintained or constituted under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (66 of 1949), the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act, 1992 (35 of 1992), the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (47 of 1968), the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (50 of 1968) and the National Security Guard Act, 1986 (47 of 1986) respectively.”

3.3 The above Notification allows exemption to all goods if manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bharat Electronics Limited, Bharat Dynamics Limited, National Instruments Limited (Calcutta), National Aerospace Laboratories for supply to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes. The following three conditions are required to be complied with to be eligible for the benefit of the above referred Notification if we adopt a strict and literal interpretation of the words mentioned in the said notification ‘if manufactured by the following units’.

i. Excisable goods are required to be manufactured by the above specified units.

ii. Such manufactured goods should be meant for supply to the Ministry of Defence. and,

ii. The goods should be meant for official purposes.

3.4. The allegation of the Department is that the Notification grants exemption only to the goods manufactured by these units and not for suppliers of the inputs / products by other vendors or contractors or job workers. The original adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of duty, interest and imposed mandatory penalty relying on the decision in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur – I [2010 (259) ELT 235 (Tri.-Del.)] wherein it was held in paragraph 16 as under:-

“Extending the benefit to the job workers and vendors who supplied the inputs to the manufacturer of finished goods who have to supply such goods to the Ministry of Defence would, apparently, amount to extending the scope of the Exemption Notification No. 63/95-C.E. As already seen above, it is not mere supply to the Ministry of Defence, but such supply should be for official purposes. Secondly, the exemption is available in relation to the finished goods and not in relation to the inputs supplied to the manufacturer of the finished goods.”

3.5. In this connection, Board’s Circular F. No. 201/22/2006 CX.6 dated 23.06.2006 was referred to which has clarified that if any goods are manufactured by any ancillary units or sub­contractors on job work basis, the Notification benefit would be available. As in this case, the appellant has manufactured the goods independently and have not complied with the job work procedure, the benefit of Notification was sought to be denied.

4.1 The Ld. Advocate Shri S. Durairaj representing the appellant has submitted that the order of the Tribunal Delhi in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. (supra) was reversed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court wherein the Hon’ble High Court has interpreted the Circular dated 23.06.2006 in favor of the assessee and held that the assessee is eligible for the benefit of the exemption.

4.2. He has also referred to the decision rendered in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Datasol Innovative Labs [2017 (349) ELT 13] by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, allowing the exemption under Notification No. 63/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995 to the suppliers of HAL. In the said case, the Tribunal held that the assessee (Datasol) is eligible for the benefit of exemption on the basis of the certificate issued by CSIO / Aeronautical Development Agency. The issue of limitation was also held in favor of assessee. Against this, the Department approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. As per the decision reported in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Datasol Innovative Labs [2017 (349) ELT 13 (Kar.)], the Hon’ble High Court, though framed question of law on both issues, left the question on merits unanswered and rendered finding only on the issue of limitation.

4.3. The Ld. Advocate has adverted to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Kerala Vs. Mother Superior Adoration Convent [2021 (376) ELT 242 (SC)] was referred to emphasize that the rule of purposive construction is required to advance the object of exemption Notification. Even in the instant case, the impugned goods were supplied to HAL to be further used in their manufacture for ultimate supply to the Ministry of Defence for official use.

4.4. The appellant has furnished copies of excise duty exemption certificates issued by HAL, Helicopter Division, Bangalore against which the appellant has supplied the impugned goods availing the exemption of Notification No. 63/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995.

4.5 The Ld. Advocate has further submitted that there is no deliberate mis-declaration or suppression of facts or fraud on the part of the appellant with an intent to evade payment of duty and all the goods were cleared under Central Excise invoices in terms of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the clearances were duly reflected in the ER-1 returns mentioning the excise duty exemption certificates issued by M\s. HAL. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bajaj Auto Limited [2010 (260) ELT 17], he has pleaded that the initial burden lies on the Department to prove that there is fraud or suppression or deliberate mis-declaration with an intent to evade payment of duty.

5.1 The Ld. Authorised Representative Shri M. Ambe representing the Department has affirmed the findings of the impugned order. He has submitted that the Board’s Circular F. No. 201/22/2006 CX.6 dated 23.06.2006 referred to by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court is not applicable in the instant case as one of the units mentioned in the list of the Notification instead of supplying goods directly to the Ministry of Defence made their supplies to another unit mentioned in the said list. However, both these units are covered under the said Notification and goods are ultimately supplied for use by Ministry of Defence. Whereas, in the instant case, the appellant has supplied the goods to HAL which is a specified unit but not the appellant.

5.2 He has argued that the clarification only answers that if both the units are covered under the said notification and if the goods manufactured by the first unit that is specified in the notification list are supplied to the second unit specified in the notification list (Eg. M/s. BEML to M/s. HAL, M/s. BEL to M/s. HAL and so on), though one unit specified in the notification list cannot be a job worker to another unit specified in the notification list, they are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 63/1995-CE upon satisfying the conditions which is not applicable in the appellant’s case as it should not be understood to extend to the ancillary units, vendors, job workers or other units not specified in the Notification ibid.

5.3 Further, he has referred to the Final Order in the case of Astra Microwave Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad – IV [2016 342 ELT 300 (Tri. Hyd.)] by Tribunal, Hyderabad which held as follows:-

“5. The Notification No. 63/95 clearly restricts the exemption in Serial No. 2 thereof only to manufacture of goods, inter alia, BEL for supply to Ministry of Defence for official purposes. There is no extension of this benefit to vendors or job workers. The appellant’s argument that they started availing exemption after clarification by a departmental officer will not help their case. An erroneous clarification cannot be taken shelter of to claim erroneous benefit. Interestingly the appellant has also produced a letter dated 27-10­2009 from the Board to Chief Commissioner, LTU, Bangalore clarifying that vendors would not be covered by the notification. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that appellants are not entitled to the benefit of exemption under the Notification 63/95. Hence on merits the appellants do not have a case.”

5.4 He has relied on the decision rendered by the Tribunal Bangalore in the case of Turbotech Precision Engg. Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2013 (289) ELT 56 (Tri. – Bang.)] wherein it was held that it will be tantamounting to extension of benefit of the Notification to a job worker or vendor who is supplying inputs to the manufacturer of the final goods for ultimate supply to the Ministry of Defence and it would apparently amount to extending the scope of exemption to such job worker or vendor.

5.5. He has pointed that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bengaluru-V Vs. Datasol Innovative Labs [2017 (349) ELT 13 (Kar.)], relied upon by the appellant, the Court has only answered on the issue of availability of limitation period and not given any decision regarding the availability of benefit of the Notification No. 63/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995 to the suppliers, vendors and other independent manufactures who have sent their inputs to any specified unit.

5.6. Finally, he has justified invocation of extended period and prayed for dismissal of appeal.

6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records as available in this appeal.

7.1. The facts indicate that the appellants have cleared Armour Panels and Stretcher Assembly which are parts of helicopter to M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., based on the duty exemption certificates provided by M/s. HAL availing exemption benefit under Notification No. 63/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995. For clarity, a copy of the excise duty exemption certificate issued by HAL Helicopter Division, Bangalore to the appellants is extracted below:-

7.2. This exemption certificate clearly indicates (i) name and address of the supplier (ii) description of the goods to be manufactured and supplied (iii) the items that are required for the production of Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) against the order of Ministry of Defence, Government of India, and, (iv) these goods are exempted from payment of excise duty leviable under Notification No. 63/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995.

7.3. A perusal of the exemption certificate will make it clear that, M/s. HAL, Bangalore, one of the specified units is to manufacture Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) and supply to the Ministry of Defence for their official use. As various components or parts are required to be procured from other manufacturers / vendors, the DGM (Deputy General Manager) in charge of Helicopter Division had issued the above excise duty exemption certificate to the appellant wherein it was certified that the items being procured are required for the production of ALH and so are exempted from payment of excise duty leviable thereon under the impugned Notification. It has to be observed that the Notification is silent regarding legality or otherwise and the basis for issuance of this kind of excise duty exemption certificates by M/s. HAL as there is no specific mention about the authority, who has to issue this duty exemption certificate. A scrutiny of the relevant Notification indicates in respect of other entries, it is specifically mentioned who has to manufacture and where to be utilized. The entries at column Nos. 4 to 7 indicate that certain specified goods are to be manufactured by M/s. HAL or other mentioned units including where they are to be used. In respect of entry No. 16 for items Pistol, Rifle and SLR falling under Chapter 93, the conditions specified include that the goods are to be manufactured by Bharat Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad and before clearance of the said goods, a certificate granting of exemption from the Deputy Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs is required to be submitted. Whereas in the instant case there is no mention in the impugned Notification regarding who is competent to issue the above duty exemption certificate. We are of the opinion that the Notification is deficient to this extent. It is not known how the practice of issuance of these exemption certificates by the officials of HAL came into practice.

7.4.1. The Ld. Advocate representing the appellant has argued that the Tribunal’s decision in the case of National Engineering Ind. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise-I, Jaipur [2017 (11) TMI 879 – Rajasthan High Court] has been reversed by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan wherein the following question of law has been framed:-

“(i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in interpreting notification No.63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 and holding that the appellant is not entitled to claim exemption under notification No.63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 from Central Excise duty on the goods supplied to Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (BEML) for further supplying to Ministry of Defence and is liable for payment of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.22,49,354/- such conclusion is legally sustainable in the eye of law?”

7.4.2 Referring to the Board’s Circular F. No. 201/22/2006- Cx.6 dated 23.06.2006 as extracted below, the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of National Engineering Ind. Ltd (supra) has held as follows:-

“4. Taking into consideration the notification of 2006 which squarely covered the case of the appellant and in view of certificate issued by competent authority, the appellant is entitled for the benefit.”

7.4.3 Thus, the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan has reversed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of National Engineering Ind. Ltd. (supra) which was relied upon for denial of the exemption benefit of the Notification (supra) by the adjudicating authority.

7.5.1. Further in the case of Datasol Innovative Labs Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, the Tribunal vide F.O. dated 08.02.2017 had held a similar issue in favor of assessee. Though the Department filed appeal against such order before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the Hon’ble High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal without rendering any finding on the question of law framed on merits of the case.

7.5.2. The facts of this case are that M/s. Datasol Innovative Labs is engaged in the manufacture of parts of aircrafts and helicopters and these were supplied to M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. By virtue of exemption Notification No. 184/86-CE dated 01.03.1986. The products which are manufactured by HAL if are supplied to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes are exempted. With regard to the above notification, the Central Board of Excise and Customs had issued a Circular and the relevant portion reads as follows:-

“2. The purpose of Notification 184 of 86, manufactured by the five units listed in the said Notification, which are mainly engaged in production and supply of goods to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes, is very clear. When goods are manufactured by other ancillary units and sub-contractors for this purpose, and are sent back to the five units for further processing, fitting, manufacture, etc. and for eventual clearance from the five main units, there is absolutely no reason for denying them the benefit of this exemption notification. You may, therefore, immediately finalise all pending cases on this basis and later send me a report as to the background factors leading to this problem so as to examine methods to ensure that such unnecessary problems are not created in future.”

7.5.3. When Datasol Innovative Labs claimed exemption on the basis of the above Circular and the notification, a demand notice was issued and confirmed by the competent authority. When the above litigation reached the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the period of five years would not be available, but, held that the demand for period of one year would be available. Discussing the above two issues, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held as follows:-

“11. The duty of the excise leviable is specified in the said schedule in the Notification No. 63/1995, dated 16-3-1995. The said notification uses the same language which reads as under :

“If manufactured by the following units and are for supply to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes”.

12. The only difference in the Notification dated 16-3-1995 is that the number of units are added up to 7 whereas, in the Notification dated 1-3-1986, the number of units were only 4. It is apparent that there is no change in the language used in both the notifications for the purpose of grant of exemption. Not only that but for the very language used, in the earlier notification dated 1-3-1986, the interpretation thereafter is already made by the Central Board of [Excise & Customs] vide Circular dated 27-6-1992 referred to hereinabove, that when the goods are manufactured by other ancillary units and other contractors for this purpose are sent to the units for which the exemption is available, there is no reason for denying them the benefit of exemption. Under these circumstances, the contention raised that the intention to evade duty cannot be accepted.

13. In our view, if there was change in the language of the Notification dated 16-3-1995, possibly the matter m ay stand on a different footing and different consideration. But when the very language is kept intact and there is only addition in the number of units, it cannot be said that the clarification of the Central Board of [Excise & Customs], dated 27-6-1992 referred to hereinabove shall be wiped off or nullified by the Notification dated 16-3-1995. As such, no intention either directly or indirectly to wipe out the effect of the Circular dated 27-6-1992 of the Central Board of [Excise & Customs] can be gathered.

14. In view of the above, if the language in the earlier Exemption Notification dated 1-3-1986 and the Exemption Notification dated 16-3-1995 were the same and the instructions issued by the Central Board of [Excise & Customs] would also co-relate. In any case, it cannot be said that there was any suppression or that there was any intention to evade the duty.

15. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the aspects bona fide of the appellant therein/respondent herein and consequential non-availability of the limitation period of five years cannot be said to be perverse nor can be said to be erroneous.

16. Under the circumstances, the question No. 1 needs to be answered in the negative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, so far as the availability of the period of five years as the limitation period.

17. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue that in view of the answer to question No. 1, question No. 2 would be inconsequential. Hence, we find that we need not answer question No. 2.

18. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.”

7.6. We find the decision in the case of Turbotech Precision Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise –II, Bangalore [2013 (298) ELT 56 (Tri. – Bang.)] has relied upon the decision given in the case of National Engineering Ind. Ltd. (supra) which has been over ruled by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan vide above order dated 08.11.2017.

7.7. Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Kerala Vs. Mother Superior Adoration Convent [2021 (376) ELT 242 (SC)] has observed that an exemption Notification has to be read as a whole so as to give affect for the purpose for which it is issued.

“19. While construing an exemption in a sales tax statute, this Court in CST v. Amara Raja Batteries Ltd. – (2009) 8 SCC 209 held :

“21. An exemption notification should be given a literary (sic literal) meaning. Recourse to other principles or canons of interpretation of statute should be resorted to only in the event the same give rise to anomaly or absurdity. The exemption notification must be construed having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to achieve. The Government sought for increase in industrial development in the State. Such a benevolent act on the part of the State, unless there exists any statutory interdict, should be given full effect. (See Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of A.P. – (2005) 6 SCC 292).”

20. Likewise, even under the Customs Act, this Court in Commr. of Customs (Preventive) v. M. Ambalal & Co. – (2011) 2 SCC 74 = 2010 (260) E.L.T. 487 (S.C.) made a clear distinction between exemptions which are to be strictly interpreted as opposed to beneficial exemptions having as their purpose – encouragement or promotion of certain activities. This case felicitously put the law thus follows :

“16. It is settled law that the notification has to be read as a whole. If any of the conditions laid down in the notification is not fulfilled, the party is not entitled to the benefit of that notification. The rule regarding exemptions is that exemptions should generally be strictly interpreted but beneficial exemptions having their purpose as encouragement or promotion of certain activities should be liberally interpreted. This composite rule is not stated in any particular judgment in so many words. In fact, majority of judgments emphasise that exemptions are to be strictly interpreted while some of them insist that exemptions in fiscal statutes are to be liberally interpreted giving an apparent impression that they are contradictory to each other. But this is only apparent. A close scrutiny will reveal that there is no real contradiction amongst the judgments at all. The synthesis of the views is quite clearly that the general rule is strict interpretation while special rule in the case of beneficial and promotional exemption is liberal interpretation. The two go very well with each other because they relate to two different sets of circumstances.”

7.8. In the case of appellant, the goods viz., Armour Panels and Stretcher Assembly were supplied to M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. [HAL], Bangalore for Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) Project. These goods were cleared against the exemption certification issued by M/s. HAL. So, that interpretation which advances the object of the Notification i.e., ALH Project for Ministry of Defence use has to be adopted. The words “if manufactured by the following units’ are to be construed to include the manufacture of goods by the vendors or job worker or contractors and if supplied to the specified unit for utilization for ALH Project. We find this interpretation is purposeful and constructive.

7.9. After appreciating the facts, as well as taking note of the Circular dated 23.06.2006 and following the decisions as above, we hold the issue on merits in favour of assessee.

7.10. The appellant has argued on limitation also. We find, the Show Cause Notice dated 05.07.2013 was issued demanding duty for the period from 2008-2012 invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) / 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant has cleared the impugned goods on the basis of the exemption certificates given by the officials of M/s. HAL and all the details were furnished in the invoices and in the ER-1 returns. These exemption certificates have certified that these goods are meant for ALH Project and would be used by HAL for ALH Project and would be supplied to the Ministry of Defence for their use. As such, no suppression with an intent to evade duty is attributable to the appellant. So, the demand of duty invoking extended period is not legal and so not sustainable.

8. In view of the above discussion and in obedience to the judicial discipline, we have to hold that the impugned Order-in-Original No. 04/2014 (CE) dated 25.03.2014 is not maintainable and so ordered to be set aside. The appellant succeeds on merits as well as on limitation.

9. As such, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

(Order pronounced in open court on 20.10.2023)