9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies that expression 'site' should not be given restrictive meaning and would include any premises made available to the manufacturer of goods falling under the Central Excise Tariff Act. Therefore, both the conditions stipulated in the Notification dated 17.2.2011 stand satisfied. The assessee, for the supplies made, were entitled to exemption under the said notification. - Decided in favor of assessee. - W.P.(C) 7120/2010, W.P.(C) 5850/2010, W.P.(C) 7083/2010 - - - Dated:- 23-12-2011 - MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. For Appellant: Mr. S. Nanda Kumar, Mr. R. Satish Kumar, Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Ms.Seema Singh, Advocate For Respondents: Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv. for Central Excise Mr. Jatan Singh, Adv. O R D E R 1. The pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty imposed upon the petitioners. At this point of time, the petitioners preferred the instant petitions. They have sought quashing of the orders in original demanding duty as well as penalty imposed upon the petitioners. The petitioners have also challenged vires of part of Notification No. 21/2006 dated 1.3.2006 as ultra vires Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Since there is a remedy of appeal against the impugned orders in original passed by the respondent, we could have relegated the petitioners to avail the said remedy. However, these writ petitions were entertained because of the reason that vires of the aforesaid Notification were also challenged. However, it is not necessary to go into those vires or direct the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied that a practice was generally prevalent regarding levy of duty of excise (including non-levy thereof) under section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), on goods of the description given in the Table below, and that such goods were liable to duty of excise which was not being levied under section 3 of the said Act according to the said practice, during the period as specified in the said Table, namely:- Description Tariff sub-heading Period (1) (2) (3) Goods manufactured at the site of construction for use in construction work at such site. Sub-headings of Chapter 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be used in construction work at such site. 6. Insofar as second ingredient is concerned, there is no dispute that the goods supplied are used in construction work at site. 7. Insofar as first ingredient is concerned, his submission was that in the instant case goods are not manufactured at site and this aspect is not even gone into by the Tribunal. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to Circular No. 456/22/99 CX dated 18.5.1999 where this aspect was clarified by the Central Board of Excise Customs (CBEC). The aforesaid requires exercise of power as contained in section 37B of Central Excise Tariff Act which makes it clear that insofar as application of beams/girders is concerned, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct/agreement for such construction work, provided that the goods manufactured at such premises are solely used in the said construction work only. 3. This will apply mutatis mutandis to the sub heading No. 7308.50 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 4.Receipt of this circular may be acknowledged. 5.Field formations and trade may be informed accordingly. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that both the conditions stipulated in the Circular dated 17.2.2011 stand satisfied in the case of these respondents and the order of the Tribunal is without any blemish. The respondents, for the supplies made, were entitled to exemption under the said notification. No question of law arises in the instant case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
