2017 (2) TMI 822 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 3/2004-CE dated 8.1.2004 - denial on the ground that the project for which pipes were supplied has not fulfilled all the conditions inasmuch as exemption certificate and the actual utilization of the PVC pipes and fittings cleared were not used for intended purpose, and the certificates issued by Collector was cancelled later - Held that - the issue involved in the present has been dealt by this Tribunal in case of M/s. Finolex Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune 2017 (1) TMI 599 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where on similar issue the exemption was allowed to assessee on fulfillment of both the conditions - benefit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Exemption denial based on project conditions not fulfilled.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in PVC pipe manufacturing, was denied exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-CE by the Revenue. The denial was due to the project not meeting all conditions, specifically regarding the utilization of the supplied PVC pipes for the intended purpose and subsequent cancellation of the exemption certificate by the Collector.

Appellant's Argument:
The appellant contended that they complied with the conditions of Notification No. 3/2004-CE by obtaining a certificate from the specified authority, i.e., the Collector, confirming the intended use of the pipes. The appellant maintained that the clearances made under a valid certificate cannot be deemed illicit even if the certificate is later canceled. Citing legal precedents, the appellant argued that once supplies are made under certificates issued by the specified authority, the exemption should not be denied.

Revenue's Position:
The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, reiterated the findings of the impugned order without providing additional arguments.

Tribunal's Analysis and Decision:
The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving a similar issue and highlighted the definition of "water supply plant" under Notification No. 3/2004-CE, which includes facilities like pumping stations. The Tribunal concluded that the pumping station in the project qualified as a water supply plant. Additionally, the discharge chamber was considered a storage facility, meeting the project requirements specified in the notification. Relying on legal precedents and the presented arguments, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 3/2004-CE. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In summary, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the fulfillment of project conditions as per the exemption notification, emphasizing the interpretation of key terms like "water supply plant" and "storage facility." The decision highlighted the importance of compliance with specified authority certificates and legal precedents in determining eligibility for exemptions under the relevant notification.