9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Gupta, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri S.K. Bansal, DR for the respondent ORDER Per B.Ravichandran 1. These 7 appeals are against common impugned order dated 30/09/2016 of Commissioner Central Excise, Indore. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PVC/ HDPE Pipes, HDPE Sprinkler and cleared the same claiming the exemption under Notification No.3/2005 dated 24/02/2005 (S. No.70). The said exemption is applicable to parts of mechanical appliances of a kind used in agriculture or horticulture falling under Tariff Heading 8424/9000. The Revenue contested the classification and eligibility to exemption on the ground that the pipes cleared in a rolled running le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal Order dated 27/09/2012 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Mumbai. The said order has been accepted by the Revenue also. The said information has been obtained under RTI by the appellant. In fact, the present dispute has been subject matter of earlier decision by the Tribunal in the various cases. He referred to the decisions in Flow Tech Power - 2001 (130) ELT 541, (Tri- Chennai), ELGI Ultra Appliances Ltd. - 2001 (134) ELT 245 (Tri-Chennai) and many others. In fact, one of the decisions of the Tribunal ELGI Ultra Appliances Ltd (Supra) reached the Apex Court where it was affirmed. 4. The Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the Original Authority. He submitted that the goods when cleared separately in coil length ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilar classification dispute between Tariff Entry under chapter 84 or Chapter 39. We also note that in the case of appellant s sister unit at Maharashtra the Original Authority examined an identical dispute of exemption and held that the product is clearly intended for irrigational purpose and the allegation or mere assertion of possible general use made by the Revenue cannot be accepted. Further, the Original Authority in that case also relied on the Interpretation Rules for Tariff and Board Circular in this regard. 8. After perusal of the sample and also facts of the present case as recorded by the Original Authority and presented by the appellant we note that the classification of the product under Chapter 39 is not sustainable. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
