2018 (2) TMI 561 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 03/2004 dated 08.01.2004 - denial on the ground that supply is not for industrial use - Held that - in the instant case the supply of cranes by the appellant was meant for setting up a water supply facility for thermal power plant and hence covered by the said Notification - benefit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. PI/VSK/40/2009 dated 17.02.2009
- Claim of exemption from duty under Notification 03/2004 dated 08.01.2004 for manufacturing cranes for supply to M/s. NLC Ltd.
- Denial of exemption by lower authorities on grounds of supply not for industrial use

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. PI/VSK/40/2009 dated 17.02.2009. The case involved the appellant's claim of exemption from duty under Notification 03/2004 dated 08.01.2004 for manufacturing cranes intended for supply to M/s. NLC Ltd., engaged in setting up a water supply plant. The lower authorities had denied the exemption, citing that the supply was not for industrial use. The appellant contended that the supply of cranes was meant for setting up a water supply facility for a thermal power plant.

During the proceedings, the appellant was represented by Shri Vishal Agarwal, while Shri D.S. Chouhan appeared for the department. The Notification in question contained an Explanation specifying that a water supply plant includes facilities for desalination, demineralization, or purification of water, intended to make water fit for agricultural or industrial use. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, the supply of cranes by the appellant was for setting up a water supply facility for a thermal power plant, falling within the scope of the Notification.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's supply of cranes was covered by the Notification, and therefore, set aside the impugned order denying the exemption. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, with the appellant succeeding in their appeal against the denial of duty exemption for supplying cranes for a water supply facility.