2013 (11) TMI 1118 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption under Notification No. 6/2006 Pipes used beyond the first storage place Revenue was of the view that the exemption from payment of Central Excise duty is only to the extent of pipes used upto the storage place Held that - Following CCE vs Electrosteel Casting Ltd 2008 (10) TMI 424 - CESTAT, KOLKATA - Notification No. 6/2006-CE merely talks about storage facility and there is no restriction that the water should be delivered only to the first storage point as has been provided in the amended Notification with effect from 1.3.2007 Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Denial of benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 for the manufacture of HDPE Pipes falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff due to usage of pipes beyond the first storage place.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Benefit Denial under Notification No. 6/2002-CE:
The appellant appealed against the impugned order denying the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing HDPE Pipes, cleared the pipes to a specific entity after availing the said benefit. The denial was based on the argument that the exemption from Central Excise duty is limited to pipes used up to the first storage place. However, a crucial precedent was cited, where the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs Electrosteel Casting Ltd clarified that the Notification does not impose such a restriction. The Tribunal's decision highlighted that the Notification focuses on the storage facility without specifying that water should only be delivered to the first storage point, as later amended in 2007.

2. Precedent and Supreme Court Decision:
The Tribunal's decision in the Electrosteel Casting Ltd case was pivotal in resolving the issue at hand. The Tribunal's ruling was further strengthened by the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs Electrosteel Casting Ltd. The period in question for the present case was February 2005 to May 2005, predating the 2007 amendment. The Tribunal found that the ratio of the Electrosteel Casting Ltd case applied directly to the appellant's circumstances. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant the benefit under Notification No. 6/2002-CE.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai in this case provides a comprehensive analysis of the issues surrounding the denial of the benefit under Notification No. 6/2002-CE. By referencing relevant precedents and legal interpretations, the Tribunal clarified the scope and applicability of the Notification, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on established legal principles and past judicial decisions.