9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /Department Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 15.12.2009 of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Indore. 2. The short issue involved in the present appeal is the eligibility of the respondent for exemption under notification no.6/06-CE in respect of AC couplings cleared along with AC pressure pipes by the respondent for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the sides and perused the appeal records. 5. The Revenue contended that the Board s clarification vide F.No.167/38/2007 CX 4 dated 15.06.2009 clearly brings out the scope of the exemption available to pipes. Such exemption cannot be extended to the pipe fittings. 6. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Forge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pe fitting, as stated in the circular for asbestos cement pipes. The circular is not applicable in the case of appellant. Its applicability is limited to those pipes, in respect of which the findings are classified in a separate heading. In terms of above clarification also the case of appellant is squarely covered by the above decision and thus exemption is available to the couplings. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the prescribed authority and all the facts were in the knowledge of the department therefore there is no suppression." 8. We find that in the present appeal the Revenue has simply relied on the Board s clarification mentioned above and reiterated that only the pipes and nothing else will be allowed exemption. We find such construction of the entry in the notification will be too literal and again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
