Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2004 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2004 (8) TMI 498 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
- Duty liability on treated water, demineralised water, and inputs used in production of steam supplied to Heavy Water Plant.
- Precedents supporting non-dutiable status of treated water and demineralised water.
- Previous demand notice dropped by Commissioner.
- Atomic Energy Department's involvement and request for specific exemption.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute regarding the duty liability on treated water, demineralised water, and inputs used in the production of steam supplied to a Heavy Water Plant established by the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. The appellant relies on precedents from earlier Tribunal decisions, specifically citing cases NEPC Agro Foods Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore, and CCE, Cochin v. Kerala State Drugs & Pharma Ltd., to support the argument that treated water and demineralised water should not be considered dutiable. Additionally, it is noted that a previous demand notice issued was dropped by the Commissioner, adding weight to the appellant's position.

During the hearing, both sides presented their arguments, with the learned JDR supporting the impugned orders. However, upon careful consideration of the case records and the cited legal precedents, the Tribunal acknowledges that the appellants have a prima facie case in their favor. Notably, the impugned goods were supplied to a unit of the Atomic Energy Department, which has taken steps to seek a specific exemption for these goods from the Ministry of Finance. In light of these circumstances, the Tribunal decides to waive the requirement of pre-deposit and schedules the regular hearing of the case for a later date, indicating a favorable stance towards the appellant's position and the involvement of the Atomic Energy Department in seeking exemption for the goods supplied.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates