9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002. The Revenue entertained a view that the appellants are not eligible for the said concession as the condition for the exemption is not fulfilled. In other words, in the project for which the pipes are supplied there is no water treatment plant. As such, the exemption is not applicable. The second issue in the present proceedings is with reference to the liability of the appellants to deposit the amount collected in the name of excise duty in terms of Section 11 D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue held that since the contracted amount is inclusive of excise duty, when the appellant enjoyed exemption from excise duty, the amount collected should be construed as inclusive of excise duty and the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2017-TIOL-918-CESTAT-MUM; M/s. Laxmi Pipes and Fittings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2017-TIOL-2160-CESTAT-DEL and in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 42123/2016 dated 1.11.2016. In view of the consistent finding of the Tribunal, on similar set of facts, we find denial of exemption is not tenable. Here we also note that the ld. counsel submitted that the treatment plant does not mean an elaborate establishment of machinery. There can be a situation where the water can be made fit for distribution for human consumption, by a simple process including at the place of source. It is his case that the plant cannot be so strictly interpreted to refer to only an elaborate pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal in the case of Poddar Industrial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2003 (158) ELT 473 (Tri. Kol.); Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tapi RCC - 2005 (186) ELT 107 (Tri. - Mumbai); Shreyans Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2005 (179) ELT 351 (Tri. Del.) and Ascent Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - 2008 (221) ELT 583. In various decisions, Tribunal held that if there is a composite contract for consideration which show excise duty is inclusive, a demand under section 11D cannot be raised. 10. In the present case, there is no evidence that the sales document namely invoices etc. indicated any excise duty separately so that the buyer has paid any money rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
