9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 312 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - HDPE pipes - classifiable under Chapter heading 3917 or not - applicability of exemption under N/N.6/2006-CE dt. 01.03.2006 upto 16.03.2012 and under N/N.12/92-CE dt. 17.03.2012 - HELD THAT - The earlier show cause notice issued to the appellant with the detailed facts alleging that the appellant is not eligible for exemption as per Notification No.6/2012-CE or 12/2012-CE has been decided by the Tribunal holding that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of exemption. The said decision passed by the Tribunal in M/S JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRA EXCISE COIMBATORE 2015 (10) TMI 1336 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that The notification had flown under clause (6) of CTH 9801. Reference to CTH 9801 finds place in Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 1-3-2006 as well as Notification No.12/2011-C.E. dated 7-3-2012. Reading of the customs notification tariff heading nature of goods cleared and Central Excise notifications enables to hold that the goods cleared by appellant were meant for drinking water supply project only. The goods so used was certified by the appropriate authority. Therefore in absence of any contrary evidence the goods cleared by appellant cannot be denied exemption. The demand cannot sustain - The impugned order is set aside - The appeal is allowed.
Issues:
1. Classification of goods under Chapter heading 3917 for excise duty exemption. 2. Validity of demand for excise duty, interest, and penalties. 3. Applicability of the earlier Tribunal's decision on exemption eligibility. 4. Department's support for findings in the impugned order. Issue 1: Classification of goods under Chapter heading 3917 for excise duty exemption The appellant, engaged in manufacturing HDPE pipes, cleared goods without paying duty to a specific project. The dispute arose regarding the classification of these goods under Chapter heading 3917 and their eligibility for excise duty exemption. The original authority upheld the demand for duty, interest, and penalties, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal. Issue 2: Validity of demand for excise duty, interest, and penalties The appellant argued against a show cause notice issued for demanding excise duty, interest, and penalties for a specific period. The original authority confirmed the demand, which the Tribunal initially allowed, citing the appellant's eligibility for exemption. The Department appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which upheld the Tribunal's decision, setting a precedent. Issue 3: Applicability of the earlier Tribunal's decision on exemption eligibility The present appeal was based on a statement of demand raised on facts similar to the earlier show cause notice. The appellant contended that the Supreme Court's decision, affirming the Tribunal's ruling on exemption eligibility, should apply. The Tribunal, after considering submissions and records, found that the earlier decision held the appellant eligible for exemption based on the nature of the goods and their use in a specific project. Issue 4: Department's support for findings in the impugned order The Department supported the findings in the impugned order, maintaining the demand for duty, interest, and penalties. However, the Tribunal, referencing the earlier decision and the Supreme Court's ruling, concluded that the demand could not be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on precedent and legal interpretations.
|
