2013 (5) TMI 484 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of duty - eligibility for claiming the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002 - As per Revenue that premises at which the goods were manufactured was not site of construction and accordingly, the appellants were not entitled for benefit. - Held that - Issue has already been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Prestress (I) Pvt Ltd Vs CCE Bhavnagar reported in 2008 (12) TMI 553 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI wherein the Tribunal has held that exemption under Notification No.6/2002 to the goods manufactured at site of the construction for use in the construction work at such site and the goods supplied for use by the Railways, cannot be denied. Thus, impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Exemption Notification No. 6/2002 regarding the manufacturing premises requirement for availing exemption.
2. Applicability of the exemption to goods manufactured at a site not owned by the appellant but used by Railways for construction.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Exemption Notification No. 6/2002
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the confirmation of duty against the appellant for not fulfilling the conditions of Exemption Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1.3.2002. The Tribunal found that the appellant was manufacturing goods at premises leased from another entity, not provided by Railways for manufacturing activities. The Revenue contended that since the goods were not manufactured at the construction site, the appellant was not entitled to the exemption under the Notification.

Issue 2: Applicability of the exemption to goods manufactured at a non-owned site
The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment in the case of Prestress (I) Pvt Ltd Vs CCE Bhavnagar, where it was established that the exemption applied to goods manufactured at the site of construction for use in construction work at that site, even if the goods were supplied to Railways. The Tribunal also considered Circular No. 456/22/99-CX, which clarified that the term "site" should not be narrowly interpreted and could include any premises provided to the manufacturer. In the present case, as the goods manufactured by the appellant were used by Railways, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 6/2002.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the goods manufactured by the appellant were ultimately used by Railways, making them eligible for the exemption provided under Notification No. 6/2002.