ORDER 1.This is a statutory appeal filed by M/s Leader Engineering Works now known as Leader Valves Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") under Section 35-L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against Final Order No. 178/05C dated 17-2-2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. E/1649/04-NB(C) whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant, thus denying the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 64/95-CE dated 16-3-1995 to it. 9 Facts 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of valves and cocks, sanitary bathroom fittings, axle box falling under Sub-Headings 8481.80, 7415.32, 7418.90, 7412.20 and 8607.00 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short "the 1985 Act") and having Registration h Certificate No. J-lICh.84/46/92. The appellant was availing the facility of CENVAT credit under Rules 57-AA/57-AB of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Notification No. 64/95-CE dated 16-3-1995 provided exemption to all goods other than cigarettes if supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy. 3. The appellant during the period January to December 2000 availing the benefit of the notification effected clearance of the goods without payment of duty on the basis of supply/purchase orders by M/s Mazagaon Dock Limited, Mumbai (for short "MOL"), M/s Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engg. Limited, Calcutta (for short "GRSE") and M/s Goa Shipyard Limited, Goa (for short "GSL") as agent of the Indian Navy and on behalf of Indian Navy and on the strength of the certificates given by the Indian naval officers stating therein that the goods purchased by MOL, GRSE and GSL were for supply "as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy". 4. The Revenue, during the course of checking of RT-12 returns and other relevant documents submitted by the appellant for the period January to December 2000, observed that the appellant had wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 64/95-CE dated 16-3-1995 by clearing excisable goods during the period January to December 2000 without payment of Central excise duty amounting to Rs 2,93,040 against clearance of excisable goods to the shipbuilder companies, namely, MOL, GRSE and GSL. The goods had been supplied by the appellant directly to MOL, GRSE and GSL on the basis of their supply/purchase orders and had not been supplied to the Indian Navy to be used as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy. M/s MOL, GRSE and GSL were mainly engaged in the manufacture/ construction of new ships and also repair of old ships. 5. Two show-cause notices dated 1-2-2001 and 27-7-2001 were issued to the appellant demanding duty and penal action under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short "the Rules") was also proposed. The appellant filed its reply to the show-cause notices. The averments made in the show-cause notices were denied. 6. The adjudicating authority observed that the goods were being directly received by the shipbuilders engaged in the manufacturing construction of new ships and repair of old ships for further consumption on board by the Indian Navy and not by the Indian Navy directly, the conditions as stipulated in Notification No. 64/95-CE dated 16-3-1995 are not satisfied and accordingly denied the benefit of the notification. The order-in-original confirmed the demand of Rs 2,93,040 against the appellant under Section 11-A of the Act. The interest at the appropriate rate applicable was ordered to be charged from the appellant under Section 11-AB of the Act. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of Rs 30,000 under Rule 173-Q of the Rules. 7. The order passed by the adjudicating authority was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed by the Tribunal relying upon its earlier decision in CCE v. Moosa Haji Patrawala (P) Ltd. It has been held by the Tribunal that, the benefit under the notification was admissible only if the goods were supplied directly to the Indian Navy as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy and not through the shipbuilders on a certificate issued by the Indian Navy that the goods supplied by the appellant would be used for the manufacture of the ships. That the certificate issued by the Indian Navy would not be sufficient to extend the benefit of the notification as if the goods are supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy. 9. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. That the certificate issued by the Indian Navy would not be sufficient to extend the benefit of the notification as if the goods are supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy. 9. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. The words of the exemption notification are clear and unambiguous. Goods other than cigarettes are exempted from duty if the same are supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy or Coastguard. The I purchase order has been issued by shipbuilders on behalf of the Indian Navy, Government of India under the Ministry of Defence for manufacture of warship in yard. As per the notification the goods supplied to the shipbuilders will not qualify for exemption and only the goods supplied to the Indian Navy directly will qualify for exemption. 10. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.