2019 (5) TMI 367 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance of M.S. pipes used for supply of water from Narmada rivers to various water treatment plants and from the said water treatment plants to storage facility - benefit of N/N. 6/2002-CE, dt.01.03.2002 and N/N. 8/2004-CE - Benefit of notification denied since the pipes were used beyond the first storage facility - HELD THAT - The issue decided in the case of COMMISSIONER VERSUS ELCTROSTEEL CASTING LTD. 2008 (10) TMI 424 - CESTAT, KOLKATA and confirmed by Apex Court in 2009 (8) TMI 1123 - SC ORDER , where it was held that the benefit cannot be denied on this ground - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE and Notification No. 8/2004-CE for pipes used beyond the first storage facility.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The appellants were involved in the manufacture of M.S. pipes under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed the benefit of exemption notifications while supplying water from Narmada rivers to various treatment plants. The dispute arose when it was alleged that the benefit was not admissible as the pipes were used beyond the first storage facility, leading to a demand of duty and penalties.

2. Appellant's Argument: The appellant contended that certificates were issued certifying the intended use of the pipes. They relied on a judgment by the Tribunal in a similar case, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the issue was settled and cited various cases where the same principle was applied by the Tribunal.

3. Revenue's Submission: The Revenue argued that as per a circular issued by the Board, pipes used beyond the first storage facility were not eligible for the exemption notifications.

4. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and referred to a previous judgment where it was held that the exemption covered pipes used beyond the first storage point. The Tribunal noted that the unamended notification did not restrict the delivery of water to only the first storage point. It was observed that even after an amendment, pipes of higher dimensions were allowed exemption beyond the first storage point. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's arguments and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

5. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were eligible for the benefit of the exemption notifications for the pipes used beyond the first storage facility. The decision was based on the interpretation of the notifications and previous judgments, establishing a consistent application of the law in similar cases.