9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst para of the SCN are classifiable under Heading No. 7308 and since the same have been fabricated at site for use in the construction work at that place, the same would be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 3/2005-C.E. (Sl. No. 64). The impugned order, therefore, is not correct. The same is set aside. - Decided in favour of assesse. - E/58445/2013-EX(DB) - Final Order No. A/52326/2014-EX(DB) - Dated:- 28-4-2014 - G. Raghuram, President and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Jayant Sahai, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER The facts leading to filing of this appeal and stay application are, in brief, as under :- 1.1 The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n fabricated at site for use in construction work at such site. This order of the Addl. Commissioner was reviewed by the Commissioner and the Addl. Commissioner was directed to file a review appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds mentioned in the Review order issued under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 16-4-2013 allowed the appeal holding that Curved Steel Roof Panels manufactured by the appellant in the factory of the Hindustan Tin Works Ltd. are not classifiable under Heading No. 7308 but are classifiable under Heading No. 7210 of the Tariff and hence, the same are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 3/2005-C.E. Against this order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Panel, that Heading No. 7308 specifically covers the Roofs , that since the goods are covered under Heading No. 7308 and the same have been fabricated at site for being installed in the factory of Hindustan Tin Works Ltd., the same would be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 3/2005-C.E., that the impugned order classifying the goods under Heading No. 7210 and denying exemption under Notification No. 3/2005-C.E. is, therefore, not sustainable. 4. Shri Jayant Sahai, ld. Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that the goods, in question, are correctly classifiable under Heading No. 7210, that the same are not eligible for exemption under No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te for use in the construction work there. The Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order has set aside the Addl. Commissioner s order mainly on the ground that these goods are classifiable under Heading No. 7210 and not under Heading No. 7308 and hence, the same would not be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 3/2005-C.E. as this notification exempts only the goods falling under Heading No. 7308 fabricated at site for use in the construction work at that site. We are of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) s order classifying the goods under Heading No. 7210 is not correct, as Heading No. 7210 covers the primary products - Flat Rolled Products of Iron or Non-alloy Steel, of a width of 600 mm. or more clad, plates or coated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
