2016 (1) TMI 1152 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Notification No. 6/2002 dated 6.9.2002 - Held that - certificate from the Development Commissioner, Gulbarga, which certified that the above said pipes are used actually for delivery of water from source to the plant and from there to the storage facility - Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as it claims that the certificate does not specify where the pipes are used, are incorrect and therefore, on merits the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification - A copy of the letter has also been provided where it is seen that the duty amount has not been paid by Maloo Construction to the appellant - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Exemption under Notification No. 6/2002 for PVC pipes used in water supply project; Refund of duty paid on PVC pipes; Appeal against refund sanction; Interpretation of certificate from Development Commissioner Gulbarga.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants manufacturing and supplying PVC pipes for a project related to purified drinking water supply, seeking exemption under Notification No. 6/2002. The notification exempted pipes required for water delivery to the plant and storage facility, subject to specific conditions. The appellants paid duty on the pipes and obtained a certificate from the Development Commissioner, Gulbarga, confirming the pipes' actual use for water delivery. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned a refund of duty amounting to Rs. 2,82,626 based on this certificate.

The Revenue appealed against the refund sanction, contending that the certificate did not conclusively prove the pipes' intended use. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the refund, citing lack of evidence regarding the specific project where the pipes were used and absence of documentation showing non-recovery of duty from the buyer, M/s Maloo Construction. However, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing that the certificate clearly indicated the pipes' use for water delivery to the storage facility. Additionally, the appellants provided payment details from Maloo Construction, affirming non-payment of duty and no burden transfer.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, recognizing their entitlement to the Notification's benefit based on the certificate's contents and supporting documentation. The decision highlighted the importance of substantial evidence and compliance with exemption conditions for refund eligibility. The judgment emphasized the significance of accurate documentation and clear certification to establish entitlement to duty exemptions under relevant notifications.