9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 334 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of N/N. 06/06 dated 01.03.2006 (Sl. No.7) - manufacture of PS CC Pipes and MS Specials - duty demand has been confirmed on the ground that the MS Special supplied by availing the full duty exemption are not mentioned in the District Collector s certificate - Held that - out of the 8 certificates in 4 certificates MS special has been mentioned. The Department has already granted exemption. When the exemption has been granted in 4 certificates it can be granted in the remaining 4 certificates also - It is not the case of the Department that MS Special were supplied somewhere other than projects in hand. The MS special are connected with the water pipes before they are used, sometimes as a bend to divert the flow. When the MS Specials were used in the project pertaining to the water supply then the same is allowable as Department has already allowed in 4 certificates - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Interpretation of exemption notification for supply of pipes for water projects. Applicability of District Collector's certificate for duty exemption. Inclusion of MS Specials under exemption for pipes. Analysis: The appeal was filed against an order dated 24.10.2013 concerning the manufacture and supply of PS CC Pipes and MS Specials for water supply projects. The appellant claimed duty exemption under notification no.06/06 for pipes needed in water projects, subject to the District Collector's certificate. The Department demanded duty payment of ?26,43,209 for MS Specials not mentioned in the certificate. The main argument was that MS Specials, being a type of pipe, should be covered by the certificate mentioning MS pipes. Out of 8 certificates, 4 included MS Specials, and the Department had already granted exemption based on them. The Tribunal noted that MS Specials are connected to water pipes in projects and play a role in the water flow, thus should be allowed under the exemption. The technical mistake by the appellant should not deny substantial justice, leading to the setting aside of the order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
|
