9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 284 - AT - Central ExciseExemption on water treatment and supply projects - N/N. 47/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002 - exemption denied on the ground that the pipes supplied by the appellant were laid for supplying water from source to storage tank owned by SIPCOT located in the compound of Hyundai and not for the delivery of water treatment plant and the treated water used for industrial purposes and not for human or animal consumption. HELD THAT - The appellant had supplied the pipes to M/s Trichy Construction Company Private Limited by availing the benefit of Notification No.47/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002 and the Competent Authority has issued the Certificate for intended use for the said pipes - On going through the said Certificate, it is found that the said Certificate has been issued in pursuance to the Notification No.47/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002 issued by the Ministry of Finance,Government of India and the use of pipes has also been explained. In that circumstances, the said Certificate cannot be doubted as held by this Tribunal in the case of M/S. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. VERSUS CCE, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI 2016 (11) TMI 1436 - CESTAT CHENNAI wherein this Tribunal has held that In absence of any proforma prescribed by the Notification, the certificate issued by the Collector was basis for the appellant to claim duty exemption. But it is very strange to note that when the Executive Engineer guided Revenue that the supply was not for the purpose of water treatment plant, further enquiry was not conducted by Revenue to ascertain the facts from the Collector. In absence of any enquiry, certificate issued by Collector cannot be discarded. Thus, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification No.47/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002 and are not liable to pay duty - appeal allowed.
Issues:
The judgment involves the confirmation of Central Excise duty demand against the appellant along with interest and penalty for the clearance of ductile iron pipes, the interpretation of exemption Notifications related to water treatment and supply projects, and the validity of the Certificate issued for intended use of the pipes. Confirmation of Central Excise Duty Demand: The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of ductile iron pipes, cleared pipes to a construction company for a water treatment project. The dispute arose when the Central Excise Authority alleged that the pipes were not used as per the exemption Notification and were intended for industrial purposes, leading to the initiation of proceedings and confirmation of duty demand against the appellant. Interpretation of Exemption Notifications: The appellant cleared pipes under Notification No.47/2002-CE dated 06.09.2002 for water treatment projects. The buyer was awarded a project to shift raw water pumping main for human consumption. The appellant provided a Certificate issued by the Collector specifying the intended use as per the relevant Notification. The dispute centered on whether the pipes were used for the designated purpose of human consumption or for industrial purposes, impacting the eligibility for duty exemption. Validity of Certificate for Intended Use: The appellant contended that once a valid Certificate is issued by the competent authority in accordance with the Notification, the Central Excise Authority cannot deny the benefit of exemption. Citing legal precedents, the appellant argued that the Certificate should be upheld, emphasizing the importance of the Collector's certification in claiming duty exemption. The Revenue, however, argued that the water supplied did not align with the criteria specified in the Notification, thus challenging the validity of the Certificate. Judgment: After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the Certificate issued by the Competent Authority aligned with the Notification requirements. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the significance of the Collector's Certificate in claiming duty exemption. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the Notification and were not liable to pay duty. Consequently, the impugned order confirming the duty demand, interest, and penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
