2018 (11) TMI 455 - AT - Central Excise

Pipes needed for delivery of water from its source to the plant and from there to the storage facility - benefit of N/N. 3/04 dated 08.01.2004 - the notification required the existence of water supply plant and storage facility neither of which were present in the particular project - Held that - It is evident from the certificate issued by the District Collector that it is a lift irrigation facility of the Government of Andhra Pradesh which involved pumping of water. The certificate further certifies that the pipes in question are required for delivery of water from plant to the delivery cistern - There is nothing in the notification to suggest that the storage facility has to be of any particular size. There is also nothing in the notification which suggests that water supply plant should necessarily have some processing facility such as for desalination, purification, etc. In this case, the plant is certainly a plant for pumping water. The certificate issued by the District Collector clarifies that the pipes are required for taking the water from the plant to the cistern and therefore, the pipes in question are squarely covered by the Exemption Notification No. 3/2004-CE dated 08.01.2004. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Exemption Notification No. 3/04 dated 08.01.2004 regarding duty exemption for pipes needed for water delivery.

Analysis:
The case involved a manufacturer of PSC pipes who cleared goods under Exemption Notification No. 3/04 dated 08.01.2004, claiming duty exemption for pipes required for water delivery. The appellant supplied pipes for a water supply plant under a government project. A show cause notice was issued, alleging wrongful exemption claim. The notification required a water supply plant and storage facility, which were contested by the authorities. The appellant argued that the notification did not mandate water treatment facilities for eligibility, and the plant in question involved water pumping, not treatment. The appellant's facilities included a pump house and delivery system, meeting the notification's criteria. The lower authority confirmed demands, but the appellant appealed, contesting the denial of exemption benefit.

The appellant argued that the exemption notification did not necessitate water treatment facilities for eligibility, and the plant involved pumping water, not treatment processes. The appellant's plant included a pump house and delivery system, fulfilling the notification's requirements. The departmental representative cited a case law stating that ambiguity in exemption eligibility should favor revenue. He contended that the absence of a clear indication of a storage facility rendered the pipes ineligible for exemption. The notification required a plant and storage facility, both allegedly lacking in the appellant's case.

The Tribunal examined the arguments and records. The certificate from the District Collector confirmed a lift irrigation facility involving water pumping, with the pipes needed for water delivery to a cistern, considered a storage facility. The notification did not specify storage facility size or processing requirements. The plant was primarily for pumping water, and the pipes were essential for water delivery to the cistern. The Tribunal found no ambiguity in the notification's application to the pipes supplied for the irrigation scheme. As there was no doubt or ambiguity, the benefit of doubt principle did not apply. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the pipes supplied for the government project were eligible for duty exemption under the specified notification. The decision highlighted the importance of interpreting exemption notifications based on their explicit requirements, without introducing additional conditions beyond what is stated in the notification itself.