2016 (11) TMI 277 - AT - Central Excise

Entitlement for exemption under N/N. 6/2001 as amended by N/N. 47/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002 - cables to a water treatment plant set up - exemption certificate - Held that - The admitted facts are that the cables for which the exemption has been claimed are entitled for the same if used in water treatment plant. There is no allegation regarding mis-use of the impugned goods for other than entitled purpose. The exemption was denied only on the ground that the certificate in terms of condition 47A of the notification was not in the name of the appellant. We have perused the condition which only states that the certificate should be issued by the jurisdictional District Collector where the water treatment plant is located stating that such goods are cleared for entitled use. There is no stipulation that the certificate should be in the name of the manufacturer. In the absence of any allegation regarding the diversion of impugned goods and in the presence certificate issued by the District Collector in favor of the person who procured the impugned goods, we find no justification in the finding of the lower authority to deny the exemption. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside to this extent - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Entitlement for exemption under Notification No. 6/2001 as amended by Notification No.47/2002-CE.

In the present case, the issue involved is the entitlement of the appellant for exemption under Notification No. 6/2001 as amended by Notification No.47/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002. The said notification exempts items required for setting up a water treatment plant, subject to the condition that a certificate from the jurisdictional District Collector confirming the goods are cleared for the entitled purpose must be produced.

The appellant supplied cables to a water treatment plant in Nalgonda, with the exemption certificate issued in the name of another company. The appellant argued that the certificate was in the name of the company that placed the order for the goods, and there was no dispute that the goods were used for the entitled purpose.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, it was established that the cables were entitled to exemption if used in a water treatment plant, and there was no evidence of misuse. The exemption was denied solely because the certificate was not in the appellant's name. However, the relevant condition only required the certificate to be issued by the District Collector where the plant is located, without specifying the manufacturer's name. Since there was no diversion of goods and the certificate was in favor of the entity that procured the goods, the denial of exemption was unjustified.

Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's decision and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief if necessary. The judgment was pronounced on 31.08.2016.