2018 (8) TMI 83 - AT - Central Excise

Supply of pipes or pipe fittings for water project - N/N. 6/2002-CE dt. 1.3.2002 - benefit of notification denied on the ground that the pipes fittings were used between the 1st storage tank point to various village storage tanks i.e. beyond 1st storage tanks - Held that - The issue has been considered by this Tribunal in Electrosteel Casting Ltd. 2008 (10) TMI 424 - CESTAT, KOLKATA , where it was held that the pipes of higher dimension have been allowed exemption in addition to the pipes required upto the first storage point - benefit cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility of benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE for PVC pipes used in water treatment project beyond the 1st storage tanks.

Analysis:
The appeal was against an order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU Mumbai, regarding the eligibility of benefit under Notification No. 6/2002-CE for PVC pipes used in a water treatment project beyond the 1st storage tanks. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing PVC pipes, availed the benefit of the notification for clearances made during a specific period. The issue raised was whether the PVC pipes used beyond the 1st storage tanks were eligible for the exemption. The appellant argued that the issue was settled by a previous judgment of the Tribunal upheld by the Supreme Court. The Revenue supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Tribunal analyzed the impugned Notification and observed that the pipes needed for delivering water to the plant and storage facilities were exempted, subject to obtaining certificates from the relevant authorities. The Tribunal noted that the required certificates were obtained by the appellant, indicating the necessity of the pipes for water delivery. It was highlighted that the Notification did not restrict water delivery only to the first storage point, unlike the amended version. The Tribunal interpreted the unamended Notification to cover pipes required beyond the first storage point, such as elevated storage reservoirs. The Tribunal also addressed the Department's argument on strict construction of the Notification's language, emphasizing that the Department itself added the word 'first' to restrict the exemption, which was not supported by the Notification's language.

Based on the findings, the Tribunal held that the impugned order extending exemption to the appellant did not warrant interference. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Department and allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the Notification and previous judgments, emphasizing the necessity of the pipes for water delivery beyond the 1st storage tanks in the water treatment project. The Tribunal's analysis led to the dismissal of the Department's appeals and the allowance of the appellant's appeal, setting aside the previous order.