2013 (2) TMI 520 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - Stay of recovery - Notification No.1/2011-C.E(N.T) dated 17.2.2011 - section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Exemption from payment of duty of excise on goods manufactured at site of construction for use in construction work at such site - Pre-stressed concrete girders/kerbs manufactured by the assessee - brought to a construction site - used in the construction of a flyover - Section 11 C of the Central Excise Act - Held that - The structural components were manufactured by the assessee at sites proximate to the construction site, brought to the construction site and used in the construction of flyover/tunnel/viaduct. If the benefit of the notification is available to those assessees, the same cannot be denied to the appellant-company. stay applications also stand disposed of - Appeal decides in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Benefit of Notification No.1/2011-C.E(N.T) dated 17.2.2011 denied
- Applicability of the notification to pre-stressed concrete girders/kerbs
- Similarity of facts with cited cases
- Entitlement to exemption from payment of duty

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore revolved around the denial of the benefit of Notification No.1/2011-C.E(N.T) dated 17.2.2011 to the appellant concerning the demand of duty amounting to Rs.53,44,221 on pre-stressed concrete girders/kerbs used in the construction of a flyover. The adjudicating authority refused the benefit of the notification on the grounds that the girders/kerbs were not manufactured at the construction site. The appellant's counsel argued that the denial was unjustified, citing a series of decisions supporting their stance.

In the cited cases, such as CEC-SOMA JV vs. CCE, Delhi-I, CCE, Jalandhar vs. Afcon Pauling JV, CCE vs. Rajendra Narayan, and CP Meier vs. CCE, the benefit of similar notifications was allowed to assessees for prefabricated components brought to the construction site and used in construction. The Tribunal found the facts of the instant case to be similar to those in the cited cases, leading to the conclusion that the appellant company should be entitled to the benefit of the notification dated 17.2.2011.

The Tribunal held that since the girders/kerbs were manufactured at a site near the construction site of the flyover, similar to the cases cited, the appellant was indeed entitled to the exemption from payment of duty as per the notification. The judgment emphasized that if the benefit was available to other assessees in comparable situations, it could not be denied to the appellant company. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed, with the stay applications also being disposed of.